Preamble

The House, met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Bridgwater Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bradford Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—

Bradford Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Southampton Corporation Bill [Lords],

To he read a Second time upon Thursday.

Staffordshire Potteries Water Board Bill [Lords],

Tottenham and District Gas Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Weald Electricity Supply Bill [Lords],

To he read a Second time upon Thursday.

Wessex Electricity Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Holborn, in the room of Sir James Farquharson Remnant, baronet, C.B.E. (Manor of Northstead).—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

FOREIGN TYRES (BRITISH FACTORIES).

Mr. HASLAM: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to factories being opened, or their opening being contemplated, in this country by foreign firms manufacturing tyres since the duty on imported tyres was imposed in April, 1927?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I understand that two such factories are already at work, and that four others are being erected or equipped.

DYESTUFFS (INKS).

Mr. G. THORNE: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware t hat members of the engineering trades are complaining that they are now unable to secure supplies of Indian inks previously available; that supplies of ink manufactured in America with dyes purchased from British dye manufacturers are refused import into this country; and that supplies are now lying at the docks
and have been for months; and whether he will remove the prohibition at present obtaining on such imports?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not received any representations regarding Indian ink, which material does not come within the scope of any import prohibition. The import of coloured drawing inks which are synthetic organic dyestuffs, colours or colouring matters, is prohibited under the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, 1920. As to these I have not received any complaints from the engineering trade, and I can hold out no hope of the removal of the restriction. But I shall be glad to make inquiries as to the consignments mentioned by the hon. Member, if he will furnish the particulars necessary to enable them to be identified.

Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive representations, if I bring them to him?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will receive information from the hon. Gentleman and make inquiries, but I can hold out no hopes that I can invite Parliament to repeal the Dyestuffs Act, which has been such a singular success.

KENYA (EDUCATION).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what number of Indian children of school age in Kenya are receiving some education, and what number are without facilities for education?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I regret that I am not in a position to give the figures, but I have already arranged with the Governor of Kenya for the inclusion in future of detailed statistics in the annual reports of the Education Department.

Mr. SMITH: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the four new posts of inspectorships created in 1926 in connection with education in Kenya have been filled?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. I may add that provision for a fifth appointment of this nature has been made in the Estimates for the current year, and that steps are being taken to select a candidate to fill it.

IMPERIAL WIRELESS AND CABLE CONFERENCE.

Mr. AMMON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Committee on Imperial Wireless and Cable Communications has yet reported?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I presume the hon. Member is referring to the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference. The Conference has not yet reported.

Mr. AMMON: Am I to take it on the authority of the Prime Minister that the statement in the Press that the report has been delivered and is being considered is inaccurate?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen the statement. So far as I know, it is entirely erroneous.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES

APPLICATIONS.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of applications for safeguarding received up to the end of May last; the number refused by the Board of Trade; and the decisions of the committee to which the other applications were referred?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: 49 applications have been received, of which two are in abeyance; whilst, in respect of four duties were imposed in Finance Acts. 20 applications were referred to committes; in seven, safeguarding duties have been imposed; and in two, safeguarding duties have been proposed in this year's Finance Bill. In 11 cases the reports of the committees were unfavourable to the applicants.

ENAMELLED HOLLOW-WARE.

Mr. WELLOCK: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the countries to which British enamelled hollow-ware was exported in 1913, 1923, and 1927, respectively, specifying the quantity sent to each country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer takes the form of tables of figures, and the hon. Member will perhaps permit me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answers:

The QUANTITIES of ENAMELLED HOLLOW-WARE of IRON and STEEL exported from the United Kingdom in the years 1913, 1923 and 1927, and reported to the Customs Authorities as of British Manufacture, are shown in the following statement, together with the Principal Countries to which such exports were consigned:—


Enamelled Hollow-ware: Cast.





1913.
1923.
1927.


Consigned to—
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.


Total to Foreign Countries
…
…
898
327
117


British Countries—





Irish Free State
…
…
—
75
91


British West Africa
…
…
47
67
87


Union of South Africa
…
…
92
83
58


British India
…
…
89
226
60


Australia
…
…
377
386
188


New Zealand
…
…
177
149
58


Other British Countries
…
…
182
97
85


Total to British Countries
…
…
964
1,083
627


Total
…
…
1,862
1,410
744

Enamelled Hollow-ware: Wrought.





1913.
1923.
1927.


Consigned to—





Foreign Countries—
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.


French West Africa
…
…
29
38
16


Colombia
…
…
3
29
22


Peru
…
…
26
18
12


Chile
…
…
85
83
97


Brazil
…
…
93
50
19


Argentine Republic
…
…
100
90
40


Other Foreign Countries
…
…
302
290
168


Total to Foreign Countries
…
…
638
598
374


British Countries—





Irish Free State
…
…
—
192
219


British West Africa
…
…
285
417
322


Union of South Africa
…
…
255
284
254


British India
…
…
202
105
39


Straits Settlements
…
…
58
51
24


Ceylon
…
…
52
13
28


Australia
…
…
434
1,353
587


New Zealand
…
…
228
316
146


Canada
…
…
144
44
62


Other British Countries
…
…
188
192
151


Total to British Countries
…
…
1,846
2,967
1,832


Total
…
…
2,484
3,565
2,206

NOTES.—From 1st April, 1923, this statement includes the trade of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the Irish Free State. From the same date, the direct foreign trade of the Irish Free State has been excluded.

Figures for 1927 are provisional.

Mr. WELLOCK: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the enamelled hollow-ware exports of this country,
and, for comparison, of Germany, Belgium, and Czechoslavakia, respectively, for each of the last six years?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table of figures giving, as far as possible, the information for which he asks in this question.

Following is the information:

Owing to differences between the systems of classification adopted in the trade returns of the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium and Czechoslova-

Domestic Exports.


Exported from—


Years.
United Kingdom.*
Germany.†
Czechoslovakia.





Hollow-ware, enamelled, of iron and steel.
Household and Kitchen utensils enamelled, of iron and steel.
Hollow-ware, enamelled, of sheet iron and steel.





Cast.
Wrought.







Tons.
Tons.
Tons.
Tons.


1922
…
…
748
1,884
38,155
2,456


1923
…
…
1,410
3,565
29,570
1,671


1924
…
…
1,069
2,749
25,215
6,973


1925
…
…
1,035
3,094
26,616
9,957


1926
…
…
955
2,744
21,183
9,581


1927‡
…
…
744
2,206
22,846
11,486


* From the 1st April, 1923, the particulars in respect of the United Kingdom include the trade of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the Irish Free State. From the same date, the direct foreign trade of the Irish Free State is excluded.


† Prior to the 1st October, 1925, the particulars include household utensils, coated, other than enamelled.


‡ The figures for 1927 are provisional.

REPARATION SHIPS (PAYMENTS).

Mr. SHINWELL: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the reason why the two shipping companies owing between them the sum of £565,000 to the Government on account of reparation vessels cannot meet their obligations in this respect; and whether he is aware that in both cases considerable dividends have been paid to shareholders in recent years?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The terms of sale of the ships concerned laid it down that payments should be made by instalments. The companies have paid the instalments and interest regularly, and have consequently met their obligations.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not the fact that it is now more than seven years

kia, it is not possible to make a close comparison between the exports of enamelled hollow-ware from these four countries.

The following statement shows, in respect of such items in the returns as most nearly agree in character, the total quantities of the exports from the United Kingdom, Germany and Czechoslovakia, respectively, in each of the years 1922 to 1927. Similar data for Belgium cannot be compiled.

since the agreement was reached with these companies, and, having regard to the fact that both of them have since been making substantial profits, should not arrangements be made now to have an immediate payment?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That does not seem at all a reasonable proposition. The contract which was entered into with these two companies was to sell them three vessels, which were to be paid for by instalments, those instalments carrying interest. The instalments and the interest have been regularly paid, and I cannot conceive how the Government could now ask the companies to vary the contract and pay the balance immediately.

Mr. SHINWELL: When the agreement was reached with these companies,
was a statement laid before the House in relation to this instalment agreement? Is it not a fact that no information was conveyed to the House at all in respect of such an agreement?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should certainly like to have notice of that question. I do not think I was in office at the time and I doubt whether the present Government, were in office, but I am sure there has never been any with-holding from Parliament of the, conditions under which all these sales were transacted. On the contrary, frequent statements have been made, and frequent debates have taken place.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: When a question of this sort is asked, which naturally reflects on the shipping community, ought not the names of these shipping companies to be supplied?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is not for me to supply the names. I agree that if a charge is made it is convenient that details should be given. On the general position, the Government have been singularly fortunate in the sales they have made of all these ships, and it is also very fortunate that, all contracts, or so many contracts, have been fulfilled.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is it not a fact that there has been an enormous depreciation and loss since the ships were sold, and, if there is to be any variation, should it not be in favour of the purchasers?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should be very sorry on the part of the taxpayer and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reopen the question of the sale of the ships.

Mr. KELLY: Can we have the names?

ENEMY DEBTS DEPARTMENT.

Mr. KELLY: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the allegations which have been submitted to him concerning the relations between officers of the Enemy Debts Department and private concerns having dealings with the Department, he has instituted any inquiry into the matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to a Memorandum forwarded to the Board of Trade by a member of the staff of the Clearing Office in which a variety of allegations are made. I have instituted the fullest inquiries into these matters. These inquiries have satisfied me that the allegations are unwarranted.

Mr. KELLY: In view of the many unsettling statements that are flying about, will this House be acquainted with the terms of the memorandum?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, certainly not. If allegations are made against anybody in my Department, it is my business, and the duty of the senior officers of the Department, to make a close investigation. When that investigation has been made, it is no part of my business to give currency to unwarranted charges.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

DISPENSERS.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any steps have been taken to secure the services of pharmacists in Royal Army Medical Corps Territorial units?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Provision for the enlistment of dispensers is made in the establishments of field ambulances and general hospitals of the Territorial Army.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Are pharmacists invited or desired to serve in the Royal Army Medical Corps?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Certainly, they would be eligible if they desired to enlist.

DRUGS AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES (STORAGE).

Sir W. SUGDEN: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he can state at what time in their military career quartermasters of the Royal Army Medical Corps receive instruction in the storage of drugs and medical supplies in such a manner as to prevent waste and deterioration; whether they are at any time subjected to an examination on this subject; and, if so, what steps are taken to ensure that the examiners themselves possess an intimate knowledge of the storage of drugs and medicines?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Drugs and medical supplies are only stored in military hospitals in quantities sufficient for approximately the current six months' requirements. Instruction in their storage is given as part of the course of dispensing which all soldiers of the Royal Army Medical Corps have to pass before attaining the rank of sergeant. The examination at the end of the course is conducted by a Board of Medical Officers.

OFFICERS (COMPULSORY FLYING).

Sir R. THOMAS: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that it is not generally known among those intending to take commissions in the Army that they may be compelled to go up in aircraft as passengers; and whether he will give instructions that they shall be advised of this fact at any early stage?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the First Lord of the Admiralty as to the naval practice, by which only volunteers are taken? Plenty of volunteers are available, and the result has been altogether satisfactory.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think the result of the Army practice has been unsatisfactory.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would it not be much better to call only for volunteers? Has the right hon. Gentleman any doubt that he would get just as many as the Navy did?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There is no trouble about it now.

Sir R. THOMAS: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War seeing that Army Order 304 of 1924 imposed no new liability upon Army personnel to go up in aircraft as passengers, but only drew attention to an existing obligation, if he will state whether a definite Army Order to this effect was ever issued; and, if so, at what date?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer is in the negative.

RECRUITING (UNEMPLOYMENT).

Mr. THURTLE: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War if for each of the last three years he can state what percentage of the soldiers enlisted in this country were unemployed at the time of their enlistment?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Records are only available in respect of the London area, where, during the last three recruiting years, the percentages were 60, 68 and 71 respectively. These figures are compiled from the statements of the recruits: no independent cheek is possible.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Would it not be possible to get the information for the whole country?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I suppose it would be possible, but I am not sure that there is any public service to be served by doing so, and, of course, it would be expensive.

Mr. THURTLE: I take it we may assume that, although these figures are confined to London, they probably represent roughly, the same state of affairs all over the country?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. I think that would he dangerous.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these figures for the whole country have been published in a paper called "The Fighting Forces"?

Mr. THURTLE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War the numbers of lads over 17 but under 18 who were enlisted in the Army during each of the last three years?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The numbers for the last three recruiting years were respectively 49, 32 and 40.

Mr. THURTLE: In view of the smallness of the numbers, does the right hon. Gentleman not think he could raise the recruiting age to 18?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Many of them were enlisted as boys and for special purposes.

ALDERSHOT TATTOO REHEARSAL (SCHOOL CHILDREN).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War
what special facilities were given for school children to witness the dress rehearsal of the sham fights for the forthcoming Aldershot Military Tattoo; whether children were admitted free and whether educational authorities were invited to give facilities; and whether next year he will consider staging a pageant of a different character at Aldershot instead of a sham fight, in view of the American proposals for the outlawry of war?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Tickets at greatly reduced rates were issued to enable school children to attend the daylight rehearsal of the Aldershot Tattoo, and notice of these facilities was given to the educational authorities in Hampshire and the neighbouring counties and in some parts of the London district. I do not share the apprehension of the hon. and gallant Member as to the effect of the presentation of historical episodes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask what apprehension my right hon. Friend sees in my question; and, when he has told me that, will he be good enough to answer the last part of my question?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My answer referred to the last part of the question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman would mind answering the last part of my question instead of throwing compliments at me?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have no other answer to give to the last part of the question. I do not think that the type of tattoo which we now stage is in any sense objectionable.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the Secretary of State for War think that the apprehensions which he attributes to me will stop if the outlawry of war treaty is carried through?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member seems to be debating this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION, NORTH UIST.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scot-
land whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the need for hospital accommodation in the island of North Uist?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am aware of the circumstances of North Uist and of the fact that there is no hospital in the district. The provision of an adequate hospital service is complicated by transport difficulties, by the comparatively small population to be served, and by the position of the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Fund, which is mortgaged to present commitments. The matter is, however, receiving my consideration.

HIGHLAND SCHOOL CHILDREN (SCOTTISH MOD).

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that Gaelic-speaking pupils in Highland schools who attend the Scottish Mod as competitors, with the full approval of, and in company with, their teachers, are marked absent in the school registers; and, in view of the special educational value of the Mod to Highland children, will he arrange that in future they will not be penalised in this manner?

Sir J. GILMOUR: While the Department are unable to allow attendances of competitors at musical festivals such as the Scottish Mod to be entered in the School registers as actual attendances at school, they raise no objection to such attendances being recorded in the school registers by a distinctive mark and included in the totals for the purpose of calculating the percentage of average attendance. Where schools adopt this course, no question of penalising anybody arises.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, WEST LOTHIAN (APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. SHINWELL: 44.
asked the Lord Advocate whether it is proposed to appoint additional justices of the peace for the county of West Lothian; and whether the Labour party in the county will be consulted when such appointments are made?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have been asked to reply. Justices of the peace for the county of West Lothian are appointed when, in the opinion of the Lord Chan-
cellor and his advisory committee, additional appointments are required for the administration of justice. The last appointments were made in August, 1920, and no evidence has been put before the Lord Chancellor since that time showing that further justices are required. It is not the Lord Chancellor's practice to consult any political party, as such, when he is appointing justices. The advisory committee includes members of all political parties, who will be consulted when such appointments are made.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the learned Attorney-General not aware that in practice political parties are consulted, and that on the last occasion when Justices of the Peace were appointed very few were appointed from among those associated with the Labour party, although the Labour party is predominant in the district?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Attorney-General can only reply on information given to him by the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I not have an answer to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is raising a matter which is not under the control of the Minister.

Mr. SHINWELL: On a point of Order. May I ask, in that case, why the learned Attorney-General has replied to my question at all?

Mr. SPEAKER: Certain facts can be obtained from the Lord Chancellor regarding these matters, which are not under the control of Parliament, and a question has to be put upon the Paper in order that the information may be obtained.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that this House can review appointments made even by the Lord Chancellor, and is not that the point of my hon. Friend's question?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, that is not possible.

Mr. MACLEAN: Then why is this question allowed to go on the Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is by an act of courtesy that the Lord Chancellor gives information on these matters.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it to be understood that hon. Members have no right to question the Attorney-General on matters affecting the appointment of Justices of the Peace?

Mr. SPEAKER: This has always been a difficult matter, and I would rather not give a hasty Ruling which might limit what has already been the practice of the House.

At end of Questions—

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, when it will be convenient to ask for your ruling as to whether questions relating to the appointment of Justices of the Peace under the prerogative of the Lord Chancellor may be asked in this House, and, further, whether this House is debarred from asking questions as to the method of appointment and the number of Justices of the Peace appointed by Advisory Committees responsible to the Lord Chancellor?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will give me notice in writing of the question he wishes to ask I will communicate with him when I am prepared to answer it. These are questions which are better answered after due consideration rather than in a hasty manner.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

PIT PONIES, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. LUNN: 20.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that in 1925 no less than 75 per 1,000 of the ponies employed underground in Yorkshire were killed by accident, whilst the average for the whole of the mines in Great Britain was 44 per 1,000; whether he is satisfied that the regulations in the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1911,, regarding ponies are being properly carried out in Yorkshire mines; how many cases have been reported of cruelty through roofing, lack of supply of good drinking water, or overwork; whether any of His Majesty's inspectors, other than pony inspectors, ever report on the treatment of ponies; whether any of the pony inspectors visit the actual part of the mine in which the ponies work; and whether the Government are prepared to increase the number of inspectors, in order to see that the regulations operate effectively and to decrease this rate of mortality?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): As this question necessarily entails a long answer, I will with the hon. Member's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. LUNN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me whether the Government are prepared to increase the number of inspectors in order to decrease the mortality?

Commodore KING: No, Sir.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the Secretary for Mines explain why there has been an increase in the death-rate in Yorkshire as compared with the rest of the country; is it due to a deficiency of inspectors?

Commodore KING: No, sir; I do not think it is due to a deficiency of inspectors. As the number of ponies is decreasing every year, there seems to be no occasion for an increase in the number of inspectors.

Following is the answer:

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, the inspectors this year have found cause for some complaint in the matters mentioned in about 50 cases. But none of these was of a serious character involving actual cruelty to the horse, and I am fully satisfied from the inspectors' reports that the requirements of the Coal Mines Act in regard to pit ponies are on the whole well observed in 'Yorkshire. I am glad to say that there has been appreciable improvement since 1925, the figures for 1927 corresponding to those quoted in the question being 65 and 37 respectively. I am, however, seriously concerned at the unusually high death rate from accidents in this district, and decided some months ago that special steps should be taken to endeavour to effect an improvement and since then the matter has engaged the special attention of the inspectors and, at their instance, of the managements at collieries where the death rate has been abnormally high.

With regard to the fourth part of the question, it is always the practice of H.M. Inspectors of Mines, other than horse inspectors, to report any apparent contraventions of the Act in regard to animals employed underground.

The answer to the fifth part of the question is in the affirmative in all case.

With regard to the last part, I am confident that, with the support and cooperation of the Industry, the steps which my Department is taking will lead to an improvement in the accident rates without the necessity of an increase in the existing staff of the inspectorate.

CLOSED MINES, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. LUNN: 21.
asked the Secretary for Mines w many coal mines have been closed in Yorkshire during the present year; and how many men were affected?

Commodore KING: Eleven pits, employing 4,430 persons, have closed down in Yorkshire this year.

Mr. LUNN: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman attribute the cause of these pits being closed and these men being thrown out of employment to the five counties scheme of ca' canny on the part of the coalowners of Yorkshire?

Commodore KING: No, Sir; the Midland Counties Scheme has probably kept many pits from closing down which otherwise would have closed down. The cause is due to a decrease in the demand for coal.

Mr. LUNN: How is it that more than 4,000 men have been thrown out of work since the adoption of the Five Counties Scheme? Is the hon. and gallant Gentieman not aware that there are 30,000 more unemployed miners at the present time than there were at the beginning of the year in the coal mines of this country?

Commodore KING: The decrease in employment is due to a decrease in the demand for coal.

Mr. LAWSON: Are we to understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman considers that the Midland Counties Scheme has been a success?

Commodore KING: No, Sir; nothing must be understood beyond what I have said. I simply state that the scheme has probably saved many pits from closing down.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is not the closing down of these pits in Yorkshire due so attempts to carry out the recommendations of the Samuel Commission?

EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 22.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many persons have obtained work in the coal mines in Yorkshire during the first five months of this year who had had no previous experience of coal-mining, stating those under 18 years of age and over 18 years of age, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. As regards persons over 18 years of age, I am making inquiries as promised in my reply to the hon. Member on 22nd May. Corresponding figures are not available with regard to persons under 18 to whom the restrictions on recruiting do not apply.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not possible to obtain the figures, particularly with regard to persons under 18 years of age, at the same time that the hon. Gentleman is making inquiries?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir. I do not think I can obtain them at present in the case of persons under 18, because the agreement does not apply to them. I am making further inquiries on the point which has been raised by the hon. Member. At the same time, I would welcome any information which the hon. Member has in his possession which might help me in making my inquiries.

Mr. PALING: In view of these contracts for the employment of men under 18, is it not time that some machinery was set up to get to know the actual facts rather than trusting to the coal-owners themselves?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have made full inquiries, not only from the coal-owners, but from all available sources, in order to obtain correct figures, to which I attach just as much importance as the hon. Member does.

Mr. PALING: Would it not be better to set up some machinery under which these lists would be gone through systematically and periodically, rather than trusting to the coalowners or the coal-miners to report as they think fit?

Mr. BETTERTON: We are considering the most efficacious means of obtaining
correct figures, to which we attach great importance.

ASCERTAINMENT SCHEMES (DEFICIENCIES).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 23.
asked the Secretary for Mines the total deficiencies under the present ascertainment schemes up to the last date for which figures are available for the counties of Yorkshire, Durham, and Northumberland?

Commodore KING: The deficiencies under the present ascertainment schemes up to April, 1928, amounted to £4,541,658 in Yorkshire, £3,835,926 in Durham, and £1,276,949 in Northumberland.

Mr. WILLIAMS: When the hon. and gallant Gentleman next gives figures relating to the wages of the miners in Yorkshire, Durham, and Northumberland, will he bear in mind that all the time they are getting deeper and deeper into debt?

Mr. KING: That is quite obvious from the figures I have given.

Mr. PALING: Will the Secretary for Mines say how much of this and the other disabilities from which miners are suffering is due to the imposition of the Eight Hours Act?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

RATING RELIEF.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines the approximate annual saving to the mine owners of Yorkshire, Durham, and Northumberland, separately, under the scheme for reducing rates on productive industries.

Commodore KING: On the basis of the amount paid in local rates in 1927, the annual reduction in rates on coal mines in the three districts mentioned will be as follows:—



£


Yorkshire
517,950


Durham
550,075


Northumberland
126,375

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the figures just given, is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that at the proposed rate of relief it will take Yorkshire nine years to get rid of its deficiency; and, as they cannot increase
their wages until the deficiency is removed, will the Secretary for Mines tell us what the Government are going to do in the meantime for the Yorkshire miners?

Mr. PALING: Or any other miners.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR VEHICLES (HEADLIGHTS).

Mr. DAY: 25.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received notice of any recommendations made by coroners juries that the lighting of motor vehicles is frequently too brilliant, and that legislation should be passed to control it; and what action he has taken in the matter.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): My attention has not been drawn to any recent recommendations by coroners' juries on the subject. The degree of "dazzle" unfortunately does not merely depend upon the power of the headlights, but also upon their construction, focussing and other factors. I am not aware of any headlight which provides an adequate driving light without some degree of dazzle. All technical developments are being closely watched by my Department, but, at the present juncture, I do not consider it desirable to make any Regulations under the powers recently conferred on me by the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927, with a view to limiting the power of motor vehicle headlights.

Captain BRASS: May I ask if the Minister of Transport has power to prohibit the use of headlights in London?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have power to regulate them, but not to prohibit them.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to regulate the use of big headlights in London when they are quite unnecessary.

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir. With our present experience, I should not like to venture upon the regulation of headlights.

Captain BRASS: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that headlights are at present prohibited in Paris?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir.

Captain BRASS: Well, they are.

OMNIBUS FARES, LONDON.

Mr. DAY: 26.
asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take with reference to the recent increases in omnibus fares in the London area?

Colonel ASHLEY: The observations of the omnibus companies have been communicated to the local authorities and other bodies interested and are, no doubt, receiving their consideration. In the meantime I do not think that there is any further action which I can usefully take in the matter.

Mr. DAY: Can the Minister of Transport say whether he has received replies from all the omnibus companies with whom he has communicated?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, I think so.

AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC REGULATORS.

Mr. DAY: 27.
asked the Minister of Transport, whether he has received any Reports of the all-electric automatic traffic regulator that has been installed in Leeds and Edinburgh; whether his Reports show that this system of traffic regulation is successful; and whether it is intended to introduce similar systems in the London area?

Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The reports received indicate that a certain measure of success has been attained by the use of these automatic signals, but they are still in the experimental stage. The question of making experiments on similar lines in the Metropolitan area is already under consideration.

Mr. DAY: Will the officers employed by the Minister of Transport keep their eyes on the signals in order to see whether the experiment is successful?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, Sir. They are constantly under observation.

PEDESTRIANS.

Mr. ALBERY: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to take any further steps to safeguard pedestrians, especially in rural areas, by making more widely known any existing rules of the road; and whether he will consider
obtaining the co-operation of the British Broadcasting Corporation towards this end?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am always glad to receive any suggestions for minimising the dangers arising from road traffic, but, so far as I am aware, accidents to pedestrians are not commonly caused by a lack of knowledge of the rules of the road, either on their part or on the part of the drivers of vehicles.

CONWAY BRIDGE (TOLLS).

Sir R. THOMAS: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport what income the Conway Bridge Commissioners have received from tolls each year since 1920?

Colonel ASHLEY: As the reply to this question contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate the desired information, so far as it is available, in the OFFICAL REPORT.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman also supply information as to the purpose for which this money has been used?

Colonel ASHLEY: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will communicate with me privately as to the specific information that he desires.

Following is the information:

According to the Bridge Revenue Accounts of the borough of Conway, the amounts of tolls collected by the Conway Bridge Commissioners were as follow:


Year.
£


1921–1922
5,047


1922–1923
5,795


1923–1924
6,884


1924–1925
7,556


1925–1926
8,570

Copies of the accounts for the years 1920–1921, 1926–1927 and 1927–1928 are not in my possession.

ELECTRICITY CHARGES (BOURNE-MOUTH DISTRICT).

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport what steps he proposes to take with regard to any petitions and letters received from consumers
of electricity in Bournemouth, Parkstone, and Poole asking for a reduction of the maximum charge for electricity in those districts?

Colonel ASHLEY: Certain representations have recently been received with regard to the prices charged for electricity by the Bournemouth and Poole Electricity Supply Company, Limited. These representations are being considered, and, in the first instance, the Electricity Commissioners will communicate with the company on the subject.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Am I to understand that it is not at present proposed to hold an inquiry?

Colonel ASHLEY: As I explained to the hon. Member, I think before the holidays, when I receive a request either from the local body or from consumers in the area, it will be my duty to go into the matter and hold an inquiry if I think it right to do so.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Do I not understand that the Minister has already received, not only one petition from at least 20 consumers, but a large number of letters from individual consumers?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir; I have not received any communication which can be regarded as an official request for an inquiry. If the bodies which can make such a request, that is to say, the corporation or 20 consumers, write to me officially, I will at once go into the matter.

Mr. HARDIE: Would the Minister say under what Act he is now prosposing to take action?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think the Act of 1919, but I should have to have notice of that question.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the Minister aware of the confusion that arises all through these districts because his Department has never made it plain that what applies to one area will also apply to any other case, and are steps going to be taken to rectify that?

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Does the word "consumer" include private consumers, and can 20 private consumers of electricity forward a petition?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, Sir; a petition can be forwarded by 20 individuals, all of whom consume electricity.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEVISION.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE. MALONE: 31.
asked the Postmaster-General how many demonstrations of television have been witnessed by technical officials or engineers in his Department; what was the date of the last demonstration; and whether his Department has received any information concerning the progress made in America?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): Technical officers of my Department have witnessed four demonstrations of television—three in this country and the fourth in the United States a few weeks ago. The company most active in the matter in this country agreed in September last to give my officers a further demonstration, but so far this promise has not been fulfilled. I have seen a statement in the Press that television tests were recently conducted by an American broadcasting station, but that after a week of tests no one had reported reception of the moving images.

Mr. DAY: Have any inquiries been made with regard to these tests in Vienna?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Oh, yes; but I think, if I am correct in my assumption as to the tests to which the hon. Member refers, that those were not, strictly speaking, tests of a process of television, but tests of a process for the transmission of drawings, which is another matter.

PRINTING CONTRACTS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has now examined the facts which were disclosed in the recent case of Gronow v. Water-low and, in particular, the action of the last-named company in connection with tenders for Post Office printing contracts; whether the directors responsible for that action are still associated with Waterlow and Company; and, if so, whether this firm is still on the list of Post Office contractors?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have examined the facts referred to, most of which had already been disclosed in previous litigation and were then the subject of severe criticism by the Court. In consequence, the position was fully investigated by the Committee of Inquiry into Government Printing Establishments, which reported last year, and I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to pages 96–101 of their Report, Cd. 2828 of 1927. The Committee came to the conclusion, with which I agree, that the tenders for the current contract, which was made with Messrs. Waterlow and Sons in 1923, were really competitive. I understand that one of the present directors of the firm was a director at the time when these incidents occurred.

Captain GARRO-JONES: With regard to the last part of my question, which the right hon. Gentleman has not answered, does he think that it would be right to enter into any new business relations with a firm which has been guilty of these malpractices while it remains under the same executive control?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The incident to which the hon. and gallant Member refers in his question is not an incident which occurred yesterday or the day before, but is one which occurred 30 or 40 years ago, and I should hesitate to say, from the account of that past history, that it would not be desirable to enter into future contracts. At the moment, however, no question of that kind arises, because the existing contract is a continuing contract, which has something over five years to run.

Captain GARRO-JONES: If the same people are in control, can the Ethiopian change his skin?

Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: Is it not the fact that the directors in that particular case are not now directors of the company?

TERRTORIAL EMPLOYES (MILITARY DITTIES).

Mr. HASLAM: 33.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the pay of employés of the Post Office, who are enrolled as Territorials or in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, is subjected to
deduction when they are absent by reason of their selection to foam members of guards of honour at public ceremonies?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There is no definite regulation on the subject, but it would usually be the practice to grant leave with pay in such circumstances if permission is applied for. If my hon. Friend has a specific case in mind, and will furnish details, I will have inquiry made into the circumstances.

ISLE OF MAN (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION).

Mr. KELLY: 34.
asked the Postmaster-General whether there is telephonic communication between the Isle of Man and the mainland; and is such communication adequate to the demands and available at night as well as daytime?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second, the provision of a service to the mainland entails the laying of a submarine cable, and this is under consideration.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Lieut.-Colonel THOM: 36.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the procedure by which new medical or other evidence which was not before a pensions appeal tribunal on the hearing of a War pension claim and which, had it been before the tribunal, would or might have resulted in a decision different from that arrived at, is brought to the notice of the tribunal; and whether the claimant in such circumstances is given an opportunity before the tribunal of leading and being heard on, and having his claim reconsidered in the light of, such new evidence?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The decision of an appeal tribunal is, by Statute, final, and the provisions of the War Pensions Act, 1919, do not admit of a re-hearing by the tribunal of cases once decided. As, however, the House has on more than one occasion been informed, the Ministry have been enabled, in exceptional cases where fresh material evidence is produce, to reconsider the claim. If such
evidence is produced in a case where an appeal has been made and has failed, it is their practice to consult the president of the tribunal informally before making any recommendation for a grant, in order that no point in favour of the claimant may be overlooked.

LAND DRAINAGE (DONCASTER DISTRICT).

Mr. PALING: 40.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any steps have yet been taken to deal with the drainage problem in the Doncaster district, as recommended in the sub-commission's Report?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The Ministry has been in communication with county councils and other bodies affected by the recommendations of the Doncaster Area Commission, and the question of the preparation of a Bill to give effect to those recommendations is now under consideration.

Mr. PALING: Are we to understand that there is a possibility that this Bill may be brought in before long?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL.

OILS IMPORT DUTY (FISHING VESSELS).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any repayments of duty on oils used on board fishing vessels have been allowed; and, if so, to what amount?

Mr. RENTOUL: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the announced concession regarding the proposed repayment of duty on oils used on board registered fishing vessels and embodied in Notice 171, dated April, 1928, issued from the Custom House, London, has now been withdrawn; and, if so, on what grounds?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The concession in question has been withdrawn, and the withdrawal has been announced in a new Notice, numbered 171A. The grounds for the withdrawal were the same as those which I gave to the House on 1st May for the withdrawal of the similar
concession originally proposed for agricultural tractors, namely, that kerosene, which is the oil principally used in fishing vessels, has been excluded from the duty and that petrol is only used in very small quantities to start up the engines. No repayments were made prior to the withdrawal of the concession.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would have been more satisfactory to the fishing industry if the withdrawal of the concession had been announced in the House, just as the offer of the concession was announced in the Budget Speech?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that is quite true.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this will affect some 2,000 motor fishing vessels in England and Wales, and another 2,000 in Scotland, and that he is under a misapprehension in thinking that these boats do not use a great deal of petrol?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My advice is that the use made of petrol is not sufficient to justify an exception in this case.

Mr. BROWN: If a question is put down, will the right hon. Gentleman give us exact figures to show on what basis he has formed his estimate?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I do not think I can undertake to say exactly the basis on which my estimate is formed. The matter can, of course, be raised in debate.

Mr. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be a great deal of disturbance in the fishing industry, especially among the men with small motor boats, about the reversal of the original decision?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sure if there is a great deal of disturbance that it will be much ado about nothing.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to reconsider it if evidence was furnished that it would make a great deal of difference to the industry in question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I cannot hold out the slightest hope of any reconsideration.

SUPER-TAX.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing that double Super-tax or Surtax may in certain cases be payable by Super-tax payers in respect of the current year, what will be the ultimate gain to the revenue by reason of this double levy of an identical tax for the same period?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend must, I think, be under a misapprehension as to the realities of the position. The Super-tax for 1928–29 is chargeable upon the statutory income (as charged to Income Tax) of the preceding year 1927–28, and is payable on 1st January, 1929. The Surtax for 1928–29, i.e., the deferred instalment of the new graduated Income Tax, is chargeable upon the statutory income of the year 1928–29 and will not be payable until 1st January, 1930. This change is part of the simplification scheme which, as I explained to the House last year, will not result in any benefit to the Exchequer. While it is true that under that scheme the change in the law relating to the charge to tax in respect of the income of the last year of a taxpayer's life will mean a gain to the revenue, that gain is approximately equivalent to the loss of something over £1,000,000 in a full year consequent on the change of basis of assessment under Schedule E.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not correct to say that in respect of the same year, Super-tax and Surtax are payable, although not payable at the same time, and that the revenue will ultimately benefit by one year's extra tax being paid, either by the taxpayer himself in his lifetime or by his executors?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I went into the matter fully when the Budget of last year was being passed. Parliament assented to the proposal then made on behalf of the Government. The Exchequer gains nothing. No extra money at all comes to the Exchequer, the concession under Schedule E wiping out the £1,000,000 which arises in respect of the year in which the taxpayer dies being included.

Mr. HASLAM: Does the Super-taxpayer benefit under this concession under Schedule E?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot guarantee that exactly the same taxpayers in all
cases receive the same advantages and disadvantages. When you are carrying a large scheme of changes in taxation, it is obvious that there must be some discrepancies, but, so far as the Exchequer is concerned, we are taking no more from the taxpayers as a whole than we should have taken had no change taken place.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many people are under the impression that this is another penalty on dying?

Sir W. DAVISON: Are we quite clear that Surtax and Super-tax are not payable in respect of the same period?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should not like to give an answer on this extremely complicated and technical matter without having the advantage of referring to the advice of my officials.

PROHIBITED PLUMAGE (SHUTTLECOCKS).

Mr. FENBY: 49.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that importers of toy shuttlecocks are called upon to make a sworn declaration that there is no prohibited plumage in the same; and whether he can see his way to issue instructions cancelling this practice?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): Importers of shuttlecocks, in common with importers of other goods of which plumage forms a component part, are required, if it is claimed that the plumage falls within the scope of the exemptions from the prohibition on import, to make a written declaration as to the nature of the plumage and the ground upon which it is claimed to be exempted. The declaration is not in the nature of a sworn declaration. It is usually made on the Customs entry for the goods. This requirement, which should give little trouble to importers, is a valuable safeguard against evasion of the prohibition and I see no reason to waive it in the particular cases referred to.

TRAVELLERS (DUTIABLE ARTICLES).

Mr. FENBY: 50.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his
attention has been drawn to the examination of Continental visitors to this country and of British tourists returning to this country; and whether he can see his way to issue instructions to exempt from Import Duties some reasonable minimum of articles either actually worn or intended for personal use in this country?

Mr. SAMUEL: Subject to certain conditions necessary in the interests of the revenue, Customs officers are already authorised to pass, free of duty, limited quantities of dutiable articles brought by passengers arriving in this country from abroad, provided that such articles are duly declared and are intended for their own personal use.

DUTIABLE GOODS (SEIZURE).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the value of the property confiscated by the State through Customs officials for last year, and the procedure for disposal of it, whether by auction or by tender?

Mr. SAMUEL: Apart from dutiable goods seized in the post, and prohibited goods for which information as to value is not available, the duty-paid value of goods seized by Customs officials in the year 1927 was approximately £8,900. Goods seized for contravention of the Customs Acts are, as a general rule, if saleable, sold either by public auction or private competitive tender.

SILK DUTIES.

Sir JOHN POWER: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the amount of British artificial silk on which Excise Duty was paid during the last quarter for which the figures are available, and during the first quarter after the introduction of the Silk Duty?

Mr. SAMUEL: As the answer is in tabular form, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The QUANTITIES of HOME-MADE ARTIFICIAL SILK on which Duty was paid during the three months ended 31st March, 1928, and the three mouths ended 30th September, 1025, were as follow:—


Quarter ended
Singles Yarn or Straw.
Waste.
Total.







Lbs.
Lbs.
Lbs.


31st March, 1928*
…
…
…
…
11,590,835
423,608
12,014,443


30th September, 1925†
…
…
…
4,288,316
97,399
4,385,715


* Approximate.


† Note.—The duty is payable in the month following that in which the Artificial Silk is produced. Hence the figures for the quarter ended 30th September, 1925, represent only two months' actual production.

BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS (CAMPS).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTANDOYLE: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any grant from public funds is made towards the cost of the camps to which boys from Borstal institutions are sent during the summer months?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): No direct grant from public funds is made towards the cost of these camps, but certain rations are supplied from the institutions, or where such rations have been purchased from the camp fund, which is privately subscribed, an equivalent money grant is made to that fund.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it time that money from public funds was granted for this purpose, and that it could not be spent in a better way?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The exigencies of the public Exchequer are such that I think we are getting on very well as it is.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Will the Home Secretary not seek to get a little financial aid for this purpose from the Secretary of State for War?

UNSUCCESSFUL PROSECUTIONS (COMPENSATION).

Mr. THURTLE: 54.
asked the Home Secretary if, for the information of the House, he will state the general principles which guide him in determining whether or not compensation shall be
paid to a person who has been wrongfully charged by the police?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Each of these exceptional cases is dealt with on its merits, important considerations being the nature of the damage sustained and the question whether misconduct or negligence on the part of the police has been so clearly established that it would not be reasonable to leave the complainant to seek his remedy in the ordinary way by proceedings in the Courts.

Mr. THURTLE: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by damage sustained? Does he mean damage sustained to social reputation, or what kind of damage?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I mean by that such damages as persons would be entitled to obtain before a jury.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the sole right to give a decision vested in the Home Secretary, or is it subject to the control of Parliament?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right is vested in the Secretary of State subject to the overpowering, the overmastering right of Parliament to dismiss him if there is want of confidence.

Mr. MORRIS: Is the test the damages that would be awarded by a jury, and, in view of that test, will the right hon. Gentleman say that the recent amount of £500 is a reasonable amount to be awarded by a jury in a case of that character?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am quite satisfied in my own mind that the £500 is a very liberal allowance in this par-
ticular case. I do not think a jury would have given more. The respondent is quite open to take his case before a jury if he pleases.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: On what Vote will this sum appear?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Police Vote.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 55.
asked the Home Secretary if the terms of reference of inquiry into silicosis in the mining industry includes an inquiry into silicosis in other industries?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Departmental Committee on Workmen's Compensation for silicosis is directed under its terms of reference to advise on any proposals which the Secretary of State may refer to it for schemes of compensation in industries liable to give rise to the disease. The Committee is at present engaged in an inquiry into a scheme for the pottery industry and I have asked it, as soon as that is completed, to advise on a scheme for the coalmining industry.

Mr. SMITH: Will the Committee receive evidence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think so. In previous cases, that undoubtedly was the practice.

Mr. PALING: Does that mean that the mining industry generally includes the ganister mines and quarries which are related to coal mines?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: At present I am asking them to deal with coal mining pure and simple. There is a question to come on very soon afterwards in regard to sandstone quarries in which a preliminary medical inquiry is already in progress.

Mr. SMITH: Do I understand that if the evidence is such the right hon. Gentleman contemplates taking action by legislation?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that if the report of the Committee is
sufficient I have powers already to make a scheme under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Mr. KELLY: Is this Committee to make inquiries with regard to silicosis affecting workers in the brickmaking industry?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot answer all these questions without notice. I do not think I have been asked at the moment to inquire into the brickmaking industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

GOVERNMENT PTJRCILISES (FOREIGN ORDERS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 56.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is aware of the large orders for railway and engineering material placed by the Indian State Railways with foreign firms; and if he has any figures showing the value of this business placed by the Indian State Railways during the year 1927 and the present year, respectively?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I am aware that, consequent on the undertaking given by the Government of India to the Legislative Assembly that in the case of orders for stores placed outside India tenders would normally be invited by advertisement and the lowest satisfactory tender accepted, some orders for such stores have been placed with foreign firms. The total orders so placed for Indian State Railways, including those worked by companies, during the year ended 31st March, 1928, amounted to £1,057,589. This figure represented about 21 per cent. of the total orders placed during the same period. In other words, some 79 per cent. of the total value went to British manufacturers. The orders placed with foreign firms during the year ended 31st March, 1927, amounted to £2,322,601, representing about 23 per cent. of the total. The balance, 77 per cent., was placed with British firms.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Noble Lord aware that very heavy orders have recently been placed for such goods a6 locomotives and engineering parts, which have a maximum of labour value, with firms such as Krupps
and the Hungarian State Railways, and is there any means—I know the Noble Lord wants to help in this matter—by which some pressure can be brought to bear to see that these orders are, where-ever possible, placed with British firms?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir. With the permission of the House I would like to make a more detailed reply than I usually make to a supplementary question, because this is an important matter. By an arrangement entered into, not by the present Government but by their predecessors—I think it was the Coalition Government—and the Government of India it was agreed that practically all orders of State requirements in India should be open to the lowest tender, that is to say, to all firms abroad and in this country. There has been great criticism at different times of this system. There has been a suggestion made in some quarters in this country of unfair bias against British firms. Equally, there has been criticism in the Assembly of bias against foreign firms. Neither of these criticisms in the opinion of my Noble Friend is in the least justified. The only way in which British firms can compete with foreign firms is by lowering their prices.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: May I ask if these transactions have been financed by money authorised to be borrowed in the City of London?

Earl WINTERTON: That matter was discussed in a Debate some time ago when I was in charge on behalf of the then Government. It was raised by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary, who was not then a member of the Government, and by the right hon. Gentleman the hon. and gallant Member's own leader, both of whom at the time criticised the anion of the Government of India. But the Bill, as far as I can recall, was carried unanimously by this House. It is a fact that some of that money has been raised in that way, but that does not affect the main princple that India has been given, under her constitution, the right to buy in the cheapest markets, with which I think the hon. and gallant Member will sympathise.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: This matter is so important that I would
like to refer to it on the Adjournment to-night, if that will suit the convenience of the Noble Lord?

Earl WINTERTON: indicated assend.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS DELEGATION (ALBANIAN MOSLEMS, GREEK EPIRUS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 57.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the representatives of India on the League of Nations have been instructed to examine sympathetically the complaints of the Albanian Moslem minorities of the Greek Epirus; if he is aware that 35,000 Moslems are threatened with eviction from their houses and farms; and what attitude the representatives of India, with her large number of Moslem subjects of His Majesty, are adopting in the matter?

Earl WINTERTON: Should this question come before the next Assembly of the League of Nations the attitude to be adopted by the Indian delegation will be a matter for consideration by my Noble Friend and the Government of India.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if this matter is being sympathetically considered in view of the feelings of Indian Moslems?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think it would be right, speaking on behalf of my Noble Friend, in this House that I should in any way tie the hands of the Delegation, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that all matters which are properly the subject of consideration by the League of Nations on this question will be considered by the Indian Delegation in the most full and comprehensive manner.

INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what treaties are now in force involving this country in military commitments?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power) on the 30th of November last, as well as on previous occasions, all the international commitments of Great
Britain have already been published and if any new ones are incurred they will likewise be laid before the House.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is a treaty in force with Portugal which involves this country in military commitments?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have got a list of the references in my pocket to the various State papers in which these treaties occur, and I will send the hon. and gallant Gentleman a copy.

Captain GARRO-JONES: The point I would like to get at is this. If it was necessary to refer to certain of our obligations in our reply to the United States Government, why was this other obligation ignored?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have already said that it is quite contrary to practice to elaborate or comment upon a Note which is still under consideration by the Government to which it was sent.

Captain GARRO-JONES: With great respect, I do not see that I am getting an answer to the question I wish to put. In the reply to the United States Government, we referred to certain commitments which we had which prevented us from accepting their proposals to the full. Why do we not refer to the other commitments to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, and, if we can ignore some of those commitments, why cannot we ignore them all and accept the proposals of America?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better put that question down on the Paper.

BRITISH TRAWLERS, ICELANDIC WATERS (ARRESTS).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will institute immediate inquiries into the circumstances of the recent arrests of the Grimsby trawlers "Sheraton," "Nylshan," "Sarpedon," and "Courser," by the Icelandic authorities; and if he will instruct a representative of His Majesty's Government to attend the trials of the skippers of these vessels.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir. In accordance with the usual procedure I have already instructed His Majesty's Consul at Reykjavik to report on these cases. I understand that the trials have already taken place.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Will the right hon. Member communicate with me when he has received the report in view of the fact that this is a wholesale system of arrest and that it is time something was done in the way of investigation.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Certainly.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Member aware that on former occasions when I have asked questions and I have been assured that I would receive a report I have never received one?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I was not aware of that fact.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is the hon. Member satisfied that the skippers or the owners have full legal assistance?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like to have notice of that question.

RIVER PENK (POLLUTION).

Mr. EVERARD: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the River Penk was seriously polluted by the Wolverhampton sewage works between 1st and 5th May; that a prosecution was prevented by the certificate given under The Wolverhapmton Corporation Act, 1891, by his department on 24th April; and whether, in view of the danger to human health and damage to the interests of fishermen, he will cancel the certificate at an early date.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 63.
asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take against the Wolverhampton corporation in view of their action in discharging crude sewage into the River Penk without authority; and what compensation it is proposed should be made to the angling societies who, at considerable expense, had previously stocked the river.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I would refer my
hon. Friends to the reply given by my right hon. Friend on the 7th instant to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Ward-law-Milne). Pending consideration of the appeal, my right hon. Friend must reserve any statement as to future action. I understand that the Town Council are prepared to pay compensation to the angling societies.

Sir ROBERT BIRD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very unfair suggestion has been made in this House and outside that the Corporation of Wolverhampton deliberately released large quantities of sewage which had been held up pending a certificate granted by his Department, and is he aware that that suggestion is entirely without foundation and has been denied by the Town Clerk of Wolverhampton in the recent police court proceedings?

Sir K. WOOD: I was not aware of that fact, but, in view of the appeal, I must make no comments one way or the other concerning the issue before the Court.

Mr. LAMB: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the action of this local authority has not only affected the interests of human health and the fishing interests, but has also affected very seriously the rights of stockholders? Is he aware that very large herds of stock have no other drinking water except this river, and that water which has killed fish over a distance of 19 miles is unfit for stock, particularly dairy stock?

Sir K. WOOD: The question of compensation will arise in this case, and no doubt people who have claims will put them forward.

Mr. LAMB: Will it apply to stockholders as well as fishing interests?

Sir K. WOOD: I should like to have notice of that question; it is a legal matter.

Mr. EVERARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this certificate issued by the Ministry of Health has taken the power out of the hands of the Fishery Board of the district who controls the river?

Sir K. WOOD: That raises a matter which it is impossible to deal with by question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

STATISTICS.

Mr. WELLOCK: 61.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses at present under construction or sanctioned under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924 and the number for the corresponding period of last year; and the number of houses completed in each of the last three months?

Sir K. WOOD: At the 1st May last the latest date for which statistics are available, the number of houses under construction in connection with schemes under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924 was 57,992, and the number sanctioned but not started was 86,985. The corresponding numbers on the 1st May, 1927, were 117,491 and 106,580 respectively. The numbers of houses completed under the Acts during each of the three months ending in April last were 6,623, 7,180, and 7,469 respectively.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman content to have a 50 per cent. decrease in the number this year as compared with last year?

Sir K. WOOD: We should like to see much more progress, and I hope we shall have every assistance in that direction.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Do not the figures show conclusively that the original crisis has now passed?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 66.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses that hav3 been constructed under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924 since the reduction of the subsidy, as compared with the average number in the three preceding years?

Sir K. WOOD: Since the 1st October, 1927, 51,531 houses had been completed under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924 up to the 1st May, 1928. The average number completed during the same period in the three preceding years was 68,713.

Sir W. DAVISON: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the fact that on the London County Council estate at Becontree, 600 or 700 houses are to let? Does not that show that the shortage has been met to a considerable extent?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is another matter, which does not arise on this question.

FINCHLEY.

Sir F. HALL: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether sanction has been given to the proposals of the Finchley Urban District Council to modify a local housing scheme so as to admit of the use of British instead of foreign tiles?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has informed the council that he has decided to sanction an additional loan to cover the cost of their proposals.

SYNTHETIC CREAM.

Mr. HASLAM: 62.
asked the Minister of Health if he has had any analysis made of bottled or synthetic cream; if he can say of what substances it is composed; and for what period it can be kept before signs of decomposition arise?

Sir K. WOOD: Bottled cream has frequently been analysed on behalf of local authorities and my right hon. Friend has no report of any instance in which it has been found to be anything but genuine cream, with or without preservative. Synthetic creams or cream substitutes are usually sold to confectioners under proprietary names and so far as my right hon. Friend is aware are never offered to the general public. Most of the samples of such articles which have been analysed have been found to he emulsions of milk and animal fat, with or without sugar. My right hon. Friend regrets that he has no precise information as to the period for which synthetic cream can be kept before signs of decomposition arise. This would depend on a large number of factors including the composition of the article, its freedom from contamination and the temperature at which it is kept.

Mr. HASLAM: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is instituting an analysis into this substance which now seems to be used in such large quantities in food?

Sir K. WOOD: I stated various conclusions which had been drawn from an analysis which had already been made.

Major COLFOX: Has the Minister any power to prevent synthetic cream from being sold as cream, and to make it compulsory to sell it under some other name?

Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter altogether. It does nut arise out of this question.

SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA (RUSSIAN MONEY).

Mr. SNOWDEN: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether, in order that the House might be in full possession of the facts relating to the financing of Communist organisations in this country from foreign sources, he would publish as a White Paper the full report of the investigations which he informed the House yesterday had been communicated to the directors of the Narodny Bank, together with the statement he received from the directors to which he also made reference; and any other germane correspondence on the subject?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I shall be happy to publish as a White Paper the full report of my investigations and the memorandum by the directors of the Moscow Narodny Bank. I have already published the correspondence. I do not think there is anything further to put in.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say what action he proposes to take, if any, on the information which he has received?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not yet in a position to say.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY).

Mr. KELLY: I beg to move,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend Section Sixteen of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919.
Under that particular Act compensation may be paid to those who are deprived of their employment by reason of amalgamation or other causes responsible for the closing down of certain of the stations. The Act limited the compensation to those who were in the employment of undertakings prior to the 8th May, 1919. Although we endeavoured to remedy that defect in the Act of 1926 and although we thought we had remedied the defect and that we should be able to secure compensation for those who had entered the undertaking after the 8th May, 1919, we have found on
taking up various cases that legal opinion was against our receiving compensation for being deprived of our employment. We have endeavoured to try to frame a Measure that would not be contentious and that would give an opportunity of doing that which was thought to have been done under the Act of 1926. We ask that instead of it being laid down that people must have been in the employ of the undertaking before the said 8th day of May, 1919, we should delete those words and leave it either for the tribunal, the Commissioners or the referee to decide what compensation these workmen are entitled to receive.
We have come across some very hard cases of men who have started in the employ of an undertaking a day or two after the date mentioned in the Act, and whilst others who started three or days earlier have received compensation it has been denied to these workers. I do not think any exception can be taken to the Bill. Those responsible for these undertakings have told me that they have no objection to it, and, in fact, would prefer to have a chance of paying this compensation. The whole purpose of the Measure is to enable compensation to be paid to those who are deprived of their employment and I ask leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by M. Kelly, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Hardie, Mr. Robert Young, Mr. Hayday, Mr. Compton, and Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BELL,

"to amend Section sixteen of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

PLYMPTON ST. MARY RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,

That they have agreed to

London County Council (Tramway Subway and Improvements) Bill, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1928.

CLASS VI.

BOARD OF TRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £100,775, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and Subordinate Departments, including certain Services arising out of the War."—[Note.—£115,000 has been voted on account.]

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): It will probably be more convenient to hon. Members if, as last year, I open this Debate and endeavour to give some review of the trade of the past year and an appreciation of the present position. On previous occasions when we have had this Debate we have been driven by the force of circumstances to depend on The records very largely of exports and imports, and upon other such information as we can collect in regard to the present position, in order to form an estimate of the amount of trade we are doing and how we stand. I told the Committee last year that we were trying to base ourselves on the Census of Production of 1824 in order to obtain a regular index figure which will give us an accurate idea of the production in the different industries in the country. I am glad to say that we have made considerable progress with most of the trading organisations, and in the course of the Debate to-day I shall be able to give to the Committee an index figure of production for the year 1927 and for the first quarter of the year 1928 covering two-thirds of the industries of the country. I hope we shall be able to get figures which will cover absolutely the whole of the productive
industries of the country and public utility services and be able to produce a quarterly index figure showing where we stand each quarter.
I think it will be convenient in the figures I have to give, if, instead of taking the year 1913 as the base year, I take the year 1924, first, because it is the year of which we have accurate figures of the Census of Production and, secondly, because it is fairer to take as our standard of comparison in postwar years a post-war year. I shall be able to give to the House, of course, comparative figures for the year 1913, but throughout this review I propose to take as the basis the year 1924. Following the precedent of last year, I turn first to the volume of our export and import trade. Taking the total imports retained and putting 1924 as 100, the figures are: 1913, 94.2; 1924, 100; 1925, 103.9; 1927, 111.3; and the first four months of 1928, 121.7. Then I take the retained imports and divide them into retained imports of manufactures, and retained imports of raw materials. In the case of retained manufactures, the figures are 1913, 95; 1924, 100; 1925, 112.2: 1927, 128.4; and the first four months of 1928, 149.5.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Is that volume?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, throughout I am talking of volume. That is why I am taking 1924 as the figure of 100, and unless I say otherwise I am comparing like with like. In the case of retained imports of raw materials, the figures are: 1913, 111; 1924, 100; 1925, 106.7; 1927, 113; and the first four months of 1928, 118.8—practically 119—a rather more satisfactory result than one would have expected in the early period of this year. So much for imports. Equally it is convenient' to take the total of British exports and exports of manufactures, again comparing volume with volume. The figures for total exports are: in 1913, 131.4; 1924, 100; 1925, 99.3; 1927, 102.3; and in the first four months of 1928, 107. In the case of the export of manufactures, the figures are: 1913, 132.8; 1924, 100; 1925, 101.5; 1927, 104.4; and for the first four months of 1928, 111.4. It will be seen that in total exports and exports of manufactures, the four months of 1928 show an improve-
ment on the same periods of 1924 and 1927. In these calculations it is assumed that the April price level is about the same as the price level for the first three months of this year, which is a reasonable assumption. The figures for May have just been received.
4.0 p.m.
I will first give the figures of imports. They make rather better showing than I should have expected. The retained imports of raw materials for May are £500,000 better than for last April, and £2,000,000 better than for May, 1927, I think that increase compared with May, 1927, is largely due to higher prices; but the imports of raw materials were greater than in April and, in volume at any rate, they were at least level with the corresponding months of last year. Imports of manufactures in May were about £1,000,000 down on April, and about level with May, 1927, imports. Exports of manufactured goods in May were £1,500,000 up on April and nearly £4,000,000 down on May of last year. I think that in order to complete the picture of export trade, one ought to see what the export trade of the world is, and what the European share of the total world trade is. I think, probably, it is true that, whereas in 1913 we were down something like 13 per cent of the total export trade of the world, in 1927 our share fell to something like 11 per cent., but the European share of world trade has shrunk also at the same time. It is interesting to note that of the combined total export and import trade of the world, whereas the share of Europe in 1913 was 62 per cent., in 1927 it had fallen to 52 per cent., although there were more countries in Europe, and therefore, on the face of it, we might expect the aggregate volume of trade passing across the frontiers to increase
rather than to decrease.
I pass to the balance of trade. Here, I think, the figures are not unsatisfactory. If I may take, first, the visible adverse balance, the declared adverse balance against us in 1924 was £324,000,000; in 1925, £383,000,000; in 1926, £474,000,000 and m 1927, £391,000,000. In the first four months of 1927, the apparent adverse balance was £158,000,000, but this year the apparent adverse balance in the first
four months is only £112,000,000. Therefore, you come to the net figure, taking into account invisible exports, that is the balance of income and expenditure in the transactions, other than lending and repayment of capital, between the United Kingdom and all other countries. Our balance in, 1924 was £86,000,000, and in 1925, £54,000,000. In 1926 the deficit was £7,000,000, and last year there was a balance in our favour of £96,000,000.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: A figure I am not quite certain about is the adverse balance at the beginning of this year.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: For the first four months of this year the apparent adverse balance, that is, of course, the visible adverse balance, was £112,000,000. I have had the figure checked, and if there is any correction to be made, I will see that the corrected figure is given, but I think I am right.
I observe in some quarters there has been some criticism as to an apparent discrepancy between estimates of the total balance of trade given by the Board of Trade and the estimates made in other quarters. As a matter of fact, if the basis on which the official and the un-official estimates were made is correctly appreciated, it will be seen that, so far from there being a discrepancy, really the official and unofficial figures confirm one another.
The figures which were published by the Board of Trade were the balance of income and expenditure in the transactions, other than lending and repayment of capital, between the United Kingdom and all other countries; that is to say, it is a profit and loss account and not a balance sheet, and the £270,000,000 given last year as our estimate of the net income of oversea investments, which, as I said at the time, I thought was a conservative figure, corresponds very closely with the estimate of £280,000,000 which Sir Robert Kindersley produced as the result of his investigations. I want also to make clear that the Board of Trade figure does not take any account of the repayment of capital. Sir Robert Kindersley estimates Sinking Funds at £34,000,000 in 1927. Nor does the Board of Trade
figure take into account the fluctuating movement of short-term money between London and New York and other financial centres. It is, as I say, a profit and loss account and not a balance sheet, and the fact that we do not estimate the amount of the Sinking Funds—I am very glad that an outside estimate has now been made—and that we do not make any estimate in that annual account of the fluctuating movement of short-term money, is quite sufficient to explain that, apparently, we are able to invest abroad a larger amount than what would appear to be the net balance. In fact, the outside investigations which have taken place have really served to show the conservative accuracy of the estimates made at the Board of Trade.
Turning to the volume of the export trade, I think it is probably convenient if I shortly show how the export trade and the import trade are distributed by markets. Of the total imports into the United Kingdom in 1913, 24.87 per cent. were from the British Empire, 40.27 per cent. from Europe (foreign) and 34.86 per cent. from the rest of the world. In 1927 the figures were 26.87 from the British Empire, 36.7 from Europe, and 36.44 from the rest of the world. In the first quarter of 1928 the imports were 29.35 per cent. from the British Empire, 32.67 per cent. from Europe and 38 per cent. from the rest of the world. Exports in 1913 were 37 per cent. to the British Empire, 34 per cent. to Europe and 29 per cent. to the rest of the world. In 1927, the exports to the Empire were 42.5 per cent., to Europe 29.5 per cent. and to the rest of the world 28 per cent. In the first quarter of 1928 they were 41.7 per cent. to the British Empire, 29.8 per cent, to Europe and 28.5 per cent. to the rest of the world. If exports of manufactures be taken as distinct from total exports, the proportion taken by the Empire is larger still.
It seems to me that that shows the importance of concentrating in our export trade on where the best opportunity offers. The Empire, clearly, has enormous advantages. I am sure that within the Empire the Canadian demand, which comes at a time of greatly increased prosperity in Canada, is worthy of the greatest possible study of our manufacturers. Outside the Empire, an
obviously increasing market is available in South America. I am glad to think that that market is being taken advantage of. In the Argentine there is a great increase of British exports to a market in which a still greater trade can take place. If you take into account the fall in prices, as well as the increase in volume, probably it is fair to say that our exports to the Argentine in the first quarter of 1928, as compared with the first quarter of 1924, have increased by something like 50 per cent. There is also, I have no doubt, a very great opportunity in spite of a high tariff, of selling in the United States. That country is rich enough to buy irrespective of price, and that fact, coupled with the fact that the existence of the Panama Canal brings British manufacturers as near to the western States, as far as freights are concerned, as the middle of America,, should encourage manufacturers to an increasing study of the United States market.
Here, again, I would put in a plea for combination in selling, particularly in those countries where competing firms are selling practically the same kind of goods. Take, for example, steel. The tinplate selling pool has proved a considerable success. I cannot believe it would not be wise policy for the steel-makers of this country to get much closer together in their representation in foreign markets. You get better representation at a smaller cost, and you get the elimination of internal competition, which is very real. I have known cases where we have tried to push British claims to a contract, and there have been two firms competing in the same market for the same contract for exactly the same type of goods. I am perfectly certain that the more you can get combined representation, the more you will be able to concentrate where concentration is most required. I know in some cases, where goods are not similar, it is difficult to have combined representation unless you have a closer combination of production, but I hope that combination on representation overseas will lead to amalgamation in production as well as amalgamation in selling.
I repeat what I have often said, that I am quite satisfied that, both nationally and internationally, as long as you are combining like with like, and as long as
your combinations are producers' combinations and not promoters' combinations, the more combination we have in this country the better it will be. As long as the productive capacity in industry here and throughout the world is in excess of consuming power, the whole incentive to manufacturers and producers is to sell a large turnover and not a small turnover. Therefore, the fear of monopoly- through combinations is one which, I think, we need not for many years regard as a serious danger. On the contrary, any risk of that kind is far more than outweighed by the advantages. But let me add this. You must really make up your mind whether you believe in combination or not. I must say to hon. Members opposite that I have stated my view quite frankly, and that I am all for these combinations. But you cannot with one breath say, "Let us have amalgamation; let us have working arrangements and combinations," and the next minute say, "Let us dig it all up, and see whether it is working all right, or whether it ought to be curtailed here and there." You must make up your mind which horse you are going to back, and then put your money on it, and see it has a chance of winning the race.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the policy of the Government trusts combined with tariffs?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Let us discuss one thing at a time. It would be quite out of order for me, to discuss tariffs, which involve legislation. The hon. Gentleman knows what is our policy in that respect. With regard to trusts, he can, in the complete absence of any policy of his own, no doubt try to attack with catchwords the advice given by others, but if, in place of "trusts," he would say "the combined effort of the industry to get the most efficient results and the cheapest production and the highest wages," he would be putting it in a truer perspective.
If I may, I will pass from that subject. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) knows that we have all got certain things to reconcile. We have all to face facts, and I do not suppose that We on these benches have more difficulties in reconciliation than he has on those benches. I do not want to be enticed into being polemical in this Debate. Let me pass
to figures about production which I want to give These are the best tests that one can apply in order to see what volume of trade we are doing. I must give one warning. I have obtained these figures for this Debate. They may need some slight adjustment, but I think it better to give to the House even approximate figures of production, even if they want a little adjustment afterwards, than to come with more perfect figures two months later. If I am a point or two wrong, I shall be excused. I propose, therefore, to give figures covering something like two-thirds of our industry. I shall take 1924 as 100 and give the index figures for trade groups for 1927 as a whole year, and for the first quarter of 1928.
Let me say, first, how our index figures of production have been arrived at. In each trade within a group—I have taken the Census of Production for 1924—we start with the best available quantity figure that we can get. We have the corresponding quantity figure in each trade for 1924. We know what was the added value in production or manufacture in 1924 to allow upon the quantity figure for each trade. We then apply the appropriate added value figure to the quantity, and we obtain the value figure for 1924 and the corresponding value figure for the current period. This process is followed in each constituent item in the trade group, and the aggregate added value figures of all the items gives us the total added value for the group. We then have, for each group, the total added value figure for 1924, and the cor[...]esponding total for the current period. I take the 1924 figure as 100, and the corresponding current figure is either above or below 100, as the case may be, and becomes the index figure for the group for the current period. Working on this basis, the following index figures have been calculated for production in 1927 and for the first quarter of 1928. The index figures for the first quarter of 1928 have been calculated in relation to the quarterly average for 1924. Let me take these groups, which cover about two-thirds of the whole industry of the country.

MINES AND QUARRIES.


1924
100.0


1921
94.7


1928 (first quarter)
96.2

IRON AND STEEL AND MANUFACTURES THEREOF.


1924
100.0


1927
109.6


1928 (first quarter)
105.6

NON-FERROUS METALS.


1924
100.0


1927
104.2


1928 (first quarter)
115.5

In the next group, engineering and shipbuilding, I am able to include shipbuilding, marine engineering, motors and electrical engineering, but I am not yet able to include the figure for general engineering. I hope that before long that figure may be available.

ENGINEERING AND SHIPBUILDING.


1924
100.0


1927
125.5


1928 (first quarter)
118.0

Mr. MAXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman separate the motor figure from the rest?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, I could, but I cannot for the purpose of giving a comparative figure. I will do that later on, when I come to a detailed review of the trade. I will then give the trade estimates of motor production. I presume the hon. Member refers to motor cars. As a matter of fact, the same point occurred to me, and I therefore got a special figure prepared. When I give it the hon. Member will be able to make his own calculation.

TEXTILES.


1924
100.0


1927
104.5


1928 (first quarter)
109.7

LEATHER, BOOTS AND SHOES AND RUBBER.


1924
100.0


1927
126.7


1928 (first quarter)
147.5

FOOD, DEINK AND TOBACCO.


1924
100.0


1927
99.8


1928 (first quarter)
98.6

I think that that covers about three-quarters of the total amount of food products manufactured.

Mr. KELLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for these figures coming down?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: What I am giving is not consumption. It is the actual food manufactured and is based on supplies. It includes drink, and I am not sure whether we are consuming or producing as much. These are not consumption figures. They are the figures of production and manufacture. It may be that we produced less drink in 1927 than we did in 1924. The evidence as to consumptive power, on the contrary, is that it is steadily advancing all the time. That is the evidence from the large stores and from the very valuable information given to me by the Co-operative movement as to their sales all over the country.

GAS AND ELECTRICITY.


1924
100.0


1927
130.4

For 1928 I cannot give the gas figure, but in the first quarter of 1928, as compared with that of 1924, the electricity generated is up by 47 per cent. It is satisfactory to see, in one group after another, considerable progress in the volume of production in 1927 and the first quarter of 1928, as compared with 1924. I hope that now, having once made a start, we shall be able to get an index figure complete for all these industries, and be able to produce it regularly as a quarterly contribution to the intelligence of the country. Side by side with the figures I have given I would like to give the total number of those employed. The increase in the total number employed corresponds, as we would expect it to do, with the increase in production. Figures which have been estimated regularly by the Ministry of Labour, of the total number of insured people in employment, show that if you take the five months of 1928 and compare them with the corresponding months of 1924, you have an average of 535,000 more people employed than were employed in the corresponding months of 1924.

Let me add, as regards a few industries, some further details. As to trade groups, I have given the volume figures of production. With regard to coal, probably I ought to give the actual production figures for 1925 and 1927 and the first months of 1928. These are the figures:



Million tons.


1925
243


1927
251


1928 (first four months)
82½


as compared with 86½ million tons in the corresponding period of 1927. No one would venture to say that the position there is not still extremely difficult. Competition is, of course, very keen. I think it is very satisfactory that, over the great majority of the fields now, there are working agreements in force. There are working cartels in operation. It is only by experience of that kind that we shall get the best development of combination in our own coal trade and shall get—I see the evidence coming—closer amalgamation. I also see very clearly evidence that, as we get these cartels, care is being taken that the prices quoted in the foreign markets are not lower than are necessary to ensure that we get the contracts. Recently there has been a considerable amount of evidence that we have been competing successfully with German coal both in North Germany and outside Germany, and, indeed, with Polish coal as well. Competition will continue to be keen, but fortunately in the last month progress has been made.

Coming to steel, I have given the index figure of production, which shows a considerable increase on the figure for 1924. I think I ought to give the imports and exports over the same period. I take the monthly averages of the imports and exports.

IRON AND STEEL.


Imports.
Tons.
Value.




£


1924
202,000
1,800,000


1927
366,000
2,800,000


1928 (first quarter)
280,000
2,250,000

The exports for the same period were:


Exports.
Tons.
Value.




£


1924
321,000
6,200,000


1927
350,000
5,800,000


1928 (first quarter)
353,000
5,550,000

Here I would point out the much greater value per ton in the exports than in the imports.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: What is included in iron and steel? Is that all iron and steel products?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes; it is the figure in the Trade Returns, "iron and steel and manufactures thereof." I would refer him to the Trade Returns. It is group "C" in these Returns.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I take it that we are right in assuming that it does not mean all iron and steel?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It does not mea t those products which are included in the engineering returns. It represents those things which are not engineering products but are manufactures of iron and steel. I think a fair description would be the products of the rolling mills and steel factories as distinguished from the products of the engineering firms.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question which I wish to put is: Are we right in assuming that what it really means is the finished product of what are known as iron and steel manufacturers, and the raw material DE all the users of iron and steel?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I had rather not commit myself to a definition as close Is that. [interruption.] No, I assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley that I have no arrière pensèe ill this matter. The right hon. Gentleman does me less than justice, because I pointed out that the value per ton of exports was much greater than the value per ton of imports, which shows that the exports in large measure are of those types of steel which have passed through further processes of manufacture. Perhaps the definition is not clear, but there is a clear distinction in the official return between engineering products on the one hand and iron and steel, and the manufactures of iron and steel on the other. I have kept to that classification, both in this statement and in the statement as regards production.
Let me come to shipbuilding. Here there has been some falling off in orders following a considerable improvement earlier on, which I think is the reflection of the low shipping freights which rule to-day, but one thing is satisfactory, and that is fiat we are to-day holding our own in building whatever tonnage is required as against the rest of the world. I give these figures to show it. Of the vessels under construction on 31st March, 1927, 1,220,000 tons were under construction in the United Kingdom. That was 47.4 per cent. of the world construction. On 31st December, 1927, when we reached the peak figure of vessels under construction, the tonnage under construction in
the United Kingdom was 1,580,000 tons, or 50.7 per cent. of the world total under construction; and on 31st March, 1928, we had 1,440,000 tons under construction in. this country, or 49.8 per cent. of the world construction. The tonnage commenced in the first quarter of 1928 in this country was 342,000 tons, which is 56.5 per cent. of the total construction begun in the world.
While, of course, full employment in shipbuilding can only come from better trade all round, higher shipping freights and larger orders I have no hesitation in saying—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) will bear me out in this—that to-day, owing to modern engineering, we can offer to the shipowners of the world a quality and range of expertness and a variety of designs such as no other country can offer and such as has never been offered at any other time. I take a ship like the "Duchess of Bedford," an oil-burning ship with water tube boilers, in which you have a boiler pressure and a temperature of a sort which has never been experimented on before. To take another case, there is the Blue Star Line, for which a ship has been fitted with the very latest machinery for using pulverised fuel—the fuel being pulverised on the ship, which is what we wanted to see done. That will give us a full scale experiment to show what pulverised fuel can do. You get in another yard the very latest designs in turbo-electrical propulsion. I think all this is a great encouragement. It shows that, difficult as times have been—and no industry has had more difficult times than shipbuilding—designers and men have kept the efficiency and the vitality and the novelty of British designs as well before the world as ever has been done in the very best of times in the past.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any figures of German shipbuilding?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I have not got them here. I have compared our figures with the total world figures. I probably could get the German figures, if the hon. Member will give me notice, but I thought that on this occa-
sion the most interesting figure would be that showing whether we were holding our own against the whole world. We have to consider not only German, but Italian and other shipbuilding, and when you come to deal with engines you have to take Danish shipbuilding into account.

Mr. H. MORRISON: Do the figures include naval shipbuilding?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Does the hon. Member mean Admiralty building?

Mr. MORRISON: Yes.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, those figures are not included. Now let me turn to engineering. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) asked me a question about the motor industry, and I agree with him that it is desirable that one should have detailed figures in regard to that industry. I have the estimates of total output made by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. These figures deal with private cars and commercial cars combined, and they are as follow:


Year.
Total Output.


1924
132,000


1925
153,000


1926
180,000


1927
209,000


These figures include chassis but they do not include cars assembled in this country of parts imported from overseas. The last return which I have from the motor trade states their estimate of the present position. Their estimate is that the 1927 output is being maintained and that they expect an increase in the production of commercial cars. There is some improvement in the export of commercial cars, particularly to South America—to the market which as I suggested before is an obviously increasing one.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it not possible to divide those figures as between private cars and commercial cars?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman wishes I can do so for each year. The figures are:



Private.
Commercial.


1924
105,500
26,500


1925
121,000
32,000


1926
138,500
41,500


1927
157,000
52,000

Mr. MAXTON: It looks as if the rich were getting richer.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, it looks as if commerce were expanding and as if the purchase of motor cars were widening among the people of this country—and indeed I am assured that that is so. It is not that the motor manufacturer is making expansions in regard to the very expensive cars. What he is devoting his attention to is the small-powered cars in which he expects to have an enormous sale. They now look forward to vast masses of the proletariat becoming the possessors of baby Austins and other "babies."

Mr. MAXTON: From my point of view the man who has £200 to buy even a very cheap car is a rich man. Presumably, from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view such a man is a pauper.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: But he is going to be able to buy these cars much cheaper than that. I understand that one is going to come on the market at £100.

Mr. MAXTON: But they are not in these figures. That is next year.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, and every year we expect to get better and better. I find that there is one figure which I omitted to give and which I ought to have given earlier; and perhaps the Committee will allow me to go back upon what I was saying. I refer to the figure of the combined production of all the groups which I enumerated earlier. The comparison is as follows:


1924.
1927.
1928 (first quarter).


100
108.1
108.3


That is the aggregate of all the groups which I have already given to the Committee. To proceed with the details, in textile machinery you have a contrast. Trade there has fallen. In rolling stock and locomotives—

Mr. KELLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figure for the textile machinery industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I cannot give those figures. In connection with this index of production I have been given confidential figures, both by trade associations and individual firms, but, of course, I must be allowed to exercise the
same discretion as that which Parliament has imposed in connection with the Census of Production and I must not give figures which would indicate the production of individual firms. Otherwise, it would be quite impossible to get these figures, as will be readily appreciated. In connection with locomotives a certain number of foreign orders have been obtained If I may now turn to electricity undertakings we find things rather brighter—in fact, distinctly brighter. We find a very good record in the face of keen foreign competition. Among the five great exporting countries of the world, Great Britain takes the lead in the export of electrical machinery. I think that is a very remarkable thing because, before the War, while I do not know exactly what our position was in this respect, it was not at the top. In 1927, we exported 31.4 per cent. of the total ex )orts; Germany exported 30.4 per cent. and the United States 29 per cent. I think that is very creditable. In the home market there has been some temporary falling off in orders, but in view of the great expansion which is indicated in the production figure, and as new schemes are sanctioned by the Electricity Commissioners, no doubt large orders will be forthcoming and I do not think we need be anxious about the volume of work which the electricity industry is likely to get.
As regards cotton, I do not think I have much to add to what I have said in recent Debates on that subject. It is interesting to note that to-day, apparently, the world is consuming something like 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 bales more than the consumption before the War, but the United Kingdom is consuming about l, 000,000 bales less. The world increase is, I suppose, largely accounted for by the, fact that different nations are manufacturing for their own internal consumption. In the case of Japan, we find there is very keen competition. The volume of trade in the cotton industry is reported to be about the same as in recent months, but there is no doubt that the threats of disputes, and the overhanging possibility of serious disputes in that industry have held up in recent weeks, perhaps in recent months, the placing of orders. Now, fortunately, that major issue seems definitely out of the way, and I think we may hope that pro-
gress may be made both in amalgamation within the industry and in combined effort by the various sections, which, as I have often said in this House, are too divorced in that trade from one another—I mean the manufacturing, the finishing, and the selling sections—to find their way into those markets which are consuming the 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 extra bales of cotton which are being consumed in the world.
In the woollen and worsted trade there was a distinct improvement in the early months of the year, but in the last month a distinct falling off. Here again the possibility of trade disputes has no doubt discouraged orders, and the uncertainty of future wool prices has also been a factor in making people hold hack in the placing of orders, but again in that industry I find—I will just quote this to emphasise what I said about concentration on markets and particularly the South American markets—that the one bright spot in the woollen and worsted trade has been the export to South America of men's goods.

Mr. HARRIS: What about Australia?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: One thing in Australia has, I gather, been creating uncertainty in the trade, and it is this, that whereas the Australian wool clip used to be sold only during a few months of the year, now that clip is held up and is being sold over longer periods. The result is that people are rather uncertain about wool prices, and I think that the spread of the sales over a longer period is probably having an effect upon prices. It is something to which the trade has, of course, to adjust itself, both on the manufacturing side and on the buying side.

Mr. HARRIS: I mean, what is the effect of the Australian tariff?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think I can say as yet. There is a very high preference given under that tariff, and I am not sure of the results. A large tariff naturally tends to restrict the entry of goods, but I should not like to give a considered judgment on the measure of that restriction without notice. In the chemical industry steady progress is reported, and the present position of export orders on hand com-
pares favourably with previous years. In non-ferrous metals, which are generally a good barometer, the position has become rather stagnant. There have been larger purchases of copper, but probably that is due to a fear of a rise of the American price rather than to the larger volume of trade.
It is not at all easy to give a trade forecast at the moment. No doubt in the last two months there has been some set-back in trade, which appears to be due to a slackening of buying rather than to intensive competition. I think the figures of imports indicate that; and the low freights show, I think, that there is a general sag in trade throughout. It is difficult to assign reasons. In the textile trades, no doubt, there has been a slackening of orders in view of the risk of trade disputes, but the slackening in the last month or so has been more general than that. I think that just as one has to recognise it it would be unwise to exaggerate it, and it is too early to say how the rest of the year will pan out. May exports were about a day under the average of previous months, but the increase in the volume of retained imports of raw materials is a better sign. We have to remember this, that to-day the productive capacity of the world is very large, and where you get a productive capacity, as in the steel industry, enormously increased, an accession of orders is now rapidly filled.
Therefore, I would sum up our position in this way. While progress is certainly being made—all the index figures of production which I have given and the increased number of people in employment to-day show that we have been making progress in the last year—that progress will probably tend to be jerky rather than to go quite steadily forward, and I would venture to draw two lessons from that. If more normal progress is liable to be interrupted by these jerks, it is very important that we should concentrate on those prosperous foreign markets to which I have already referred; and it is even more important that we should, by ready co-operation between buyer and seller, get the largest possible share of our home market for ourselves.
There is no doubt at all that the home market to-day is far more important relatively than it was before the War.
Just look at the position. We are exporting less, we are importing a great deal more, and we are producing more, as those index figures and the employment figures show, and the difference of that larger import, that larger production, the balance from that smaller export, is being bought and consumed somewhere. There is only one place where it is being consumed, and that is in the home market, and the purchasing power in the home market is maintained in the most extraordinary way, as is evidenced by the figures of the big stores and of the co-operative societies. Social services help this. We rightly spend enormous sums upon social services, and this must mean the spending of more money across the counter in purchasing goods, and surely it is enormously important that the money the British taxpayer spends should, as far as possible, feed British trade rather than foreign trade. It is desirable in itself, and it leads to less money being required for those services and more money being paid out in trade.
That leads me to say a word or two on the results of two recent Acts. First of all, with regard to the Merchandise Marks Act, the requirement that a British name on British goods should indicate British origin has undoubtedly led to larger purchases of British goods, and the number of applications which have been made for marking orders shows the popularity of the Act and the efficiency of form in which it passed this House. The smoothness of working, the expedition with which the inquiries have been conducted, and the large measure of agreement reached at those inquiries show that that Act, to which this House devoted so much attention, has been giving great help to British manufactures with the very least possible—indeed, with probably no—inconvenience at all to others. I think a tribute is due to the Committee, consisting of Sir Hubert Llewellyn. Smith, Mr. Barnes, and Mr. Davenport, who began their work, I think, in May, 1927. They have already held 31 inquiries; we have had an Order covering eight industries, and there are current Orders covering 12, while 15 more applications have been referred to the Committee. That, I think, shows that that Act has been satisfactory.
We are also making an effort to do some more work in connection with standardisation. It will be remembered that the Imperial Conference laid emphasis on the importance of standardisation and of securing common standards and common types throughout the Empire. The British Engineering Standards Association, as far as standardisation goes, is already doing admirable work, and I think it should be in close contact with the Dominion authorities, but more is needed if we are to get simplification of types. That is more novel, but, I think, not less necessary. We are a very individual stic people. Manufacturers like their own types, and many buyers, not least the local authorities, display an extraordinary ingenuity in insisting upon variety of types. We have a very varied export trade, and we are also, of course, a free market. Therefore, it is more difficult here, but not less necessary to try and get economy of production in the simplification of types, and we are making an effort to bring both buyers and sellers together. We have started a Central Committee with all the large manufacturing organisations, with buyers' organisations, with chambers of commerce; and the co-operative societies, I am glad to say, have combined with us. In that way, I hope we shall be able to get an educative force behind a campaign in favour of simplification. But, while that has been done by the Board of Trade and the bodies I have mentioned, the main work must remain with the trades themselves. A start is being made on hollowware and crockery.
5.0 p.m.
I want to add one word about one other Act designed to assist British production and British trade, namely, the Films Act. That Act is undoubtedly already showing itself to be a signal success. Of 932 films registered t p to date, 104 are British. Of the total length registered, over 12 per cent. is British. Take long films alone, which are most important; over 13½ per cent. of the films registered are British films, and that means that, we have more than doubled the number already required for the quota in the first year. There are more than 20 British makers, studios are being built and enlarged, and American distributors are buying for distribution here. But what is most important and what is the
real test is not how far we are carrying the distribution of British films in this country, where we are far exceeding the quota, but how far we are carrying the distribution of British films across the world at large, where there is no quota for British films and where they are only going to take them on their merits. I venture to say that I am sure it is the only way of getting quality, and of spreading British films outside. Distributing agencies have been started for distributing British films in Australia and New Zealand. A block of British pictures has been sold to one of the largest American distributing houses for distribution in America. Arrangements have been made between British and German distributing companies for mutual distribution and the distribution of British films in Germany. Arrangements have been made for distribution in France, other European countries, Asia Minor and South America. There is no quota in those countries and British films are making their way into those countries, and are being distributed on their merits, because this House was wise enough to see that they had merits.
In this review I have tried to cover as much of the industries of the country as I can. I admit that there is some slackening at the present moment, but, taking the figures I have given, I think that they show a rather remarkable advance. I am saying nothing polemical, but merely recording the fact, that the unhappy year 1926 was bound to cause a terrible setback, not only while it was taking place, but in the recovery from the aftermath. With that we must all agree, but I think that the advance that we have made in production in 1927 and the early months of this year, in spite of that setback, is a very remarkable record. If our progress in 1927 and in the first months of this year has been somewhat arrested, the more need is there for the combined efforts of all of us, the more need for mutual understanding and goodwill, so that we may in the later months of this year restore and exceed the success which we achieved in the earlier months.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I am sure the Committee is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the very compre-
hensive review of our trade position, and the Committee will agree that, rightly regarded, this should be one of the most important Debates of the whole Session on the Estimates, affording an opportunity, as it does, of considering some of the larger problems of trade and industry, and of indulging in all kinds of constructive criticism of the administrative efforts which we should like to see directed to the removal of the deep-seated unemployment of recent years. May I make two preliminary observations of a general character on these Estimates. We approach them at a time when we have still 1,000,000 people out of work, and when the burdens of our National Debt and annual taxation are beginning, so to speak, to settle down into post-War conditions. Notwithstanding all the efforts of recent years, we have made little or no inroad upon aggregate unemployment, and the Committee recognises that a very large amount of industrial skill is running to waste, and that large numbers of young people have come up who have never known in the post-War period a regular occupation. Then, from the purely financial point of view, it is plain that, taking our dead-weight debt at nearly £8,000,000,000, and the stabilised service which has been now introduced, it is very unlikely that this country in the near future will have an annual Budget of much less than £800,000,000, and probably rather more. Only with a more or less dramatic fall in prices will any change be brought about. We have these two things, the dead weight of unemployment, and this national obligation, which immediately face us when we consider these Estimates, and the trade review which they involve.
It is also clear that the statement of the President of the Board of Trade to-day is one of only partial satisfaction. I propose, briefly, to try and state the trade position from another angle. It is sometimes suggested, for example, that the volume of world trade is smaller than it was in pre-War times, and in particular in 1913. That is not so. The most reliable statistics of recent days indicate that the volume of world trade is to-day probably 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. above the volume of 1913, after allowance has been made for an adjustment on 1913 values. The question which immediately concerns us, and which, in fact, is raised in the speech of the President of the
Board of Trade, bears on the percentage of that volume of trade, increasing within narrow limits in that way, which Great Britain enjoys. The right hon. Gentleman made that perfectly plain. In 1913, that percentage was about 13.9. A year or two after the War it was 12.9. It fell to 10.6 in 1926, admittedly an exceptional year, and the President of the Board of Trade puts it to-day at about 11 per cent. So that when the necessary adjustment has been made to pre-War values or pre-War prices, we have not regained our proportion of the general export trade of the world, a fact which must have an important bearing upon the condition of employment in this country. May I say, in passing, that we on this side of the Committee do not for a moment under-estimate the importance of the home market. On the contrary, we urge there is room for all kinds of development in the domestic industry of this country, in the cultivation of that market, and in the building up of a far greater economic strength at home. All that is true, but the fact remains that from our geographical position, in view of our financial commitments in the world, and for a variety of other reasons, we depend, and will continue to depend, to a very large extent upon the export trade. A review of this kind is therefore of the highest practical importance, particularly in those heavy industries, with their weight of unemployment, struggling to recover their place in the markets of the world.
With the percentage rather against us at the present time, let us ask ourselves what has happened in the different parts of the world. That seems to me to fall clearly into three parts—the amount and volume of trade which we have in foreign markets, what we are doing within the British Empire itself, and the extent to which we are being displaced in certain parts of the world. So far as foreign markets are concerned, there is not the slightest doubt that, taking the situation generally, America is in a position of advantage in existing conditions. That is clearly illustrated by two charts which have been prepared, indicating the comparative position of the United States of America and of Great Britain in the important markets of South America, and in China and Japan. If a
strict com-
parison be made of two very important parts of the world, it will be seen from that chart that, taking 1913 down to 1926, the position of America and Great Britain has been almost exactly reversed. In other words, America has gained in those markets the position which we enjoyed in 1913.
In the next place, there is not the slightest doubt that America has made substantial progress, if within narrower limits, on the Continent of Europe—a progress which has been assisted to an appreciable extent by the manner in which in recent years, and under post-War conditions, America has penetrated the European financial system. Then again—and this raises a very important issue—America has undoubtedly made progress in the British Empire itself. Our proportion of imports within the Empire is about 40 per cent., and it is, of course, true that we are maintaining our position, and that we have still a strong position within the Empire, as compared with the comparative weakening in other parts of the world. But the fact remains that, in parts of the Empire like Australia and Canada, America is making undeniable progress. No one who has studied Canadian financial conditions, and the manner in which the United States has followed her financial contributions by appeals for orders in recent years, will take other than this view, that an important and even serious situation in Canada is developing for Great Britain. You have, therefore, a first-class issue within the realm of what are called Imperial economics. To an appreciable extent that is also true of Australia; the success of America in the motor car industry in the Australian market is of very great importance. That is the situation as I see it in rough outline for the purposes of this Debate, and it indicates exactly how the percentage has fallen in the foreign markets, while we are in danger of losing the comparative strength of recent years in certain parts of the Empire.
When we come to the further analysis of the situation, we have at our disposal a wealth of material. We on this side of the House will never cease to be justly proud of the fact that it was the Prime Minister of the Government of
1924, on the recommendation of the then President of the Board of Trade, who appointed the Balfour Committee, six of whose reports on a wide variety of industrial and commercial conditions are now at the disposal of hon. Members of this House. Side by side with that information, we have a vast mass of material, which has been submitted within recent times, on the economic side of the League of Nations, and we have a great deal of other matter which has been considered by representative conferences, particularly during the post-War period. Taking the analysis of the first report of the Balfour Committee, because it undoubtedly contains material of great constructive importance, we find that, first of all, they direct attention to the growing and very great difficulty which has emerged from the paralysis or the weakness of certain markets which we formerly enjoyed. In that connection, they undoubtedly have in mind the Continent of Europe.
Take the economic conditions in Europe during and after the War. It was on Europe that the great burden of war expenditure and war exhaustion fell; it was in Europe after the War that we had all that dislocation of the exchanges, the distraction of industry, the erection of new Customs barriers, the establishment of all kinds of restrictions based upon a futile and useless, as I regard it, self-sufficiency in a matter of this kind. To-day, at a distance of ten years from the Armistice, we begin to be able to see that Europe is being adjusted in terms of the great changes brought about by the War. Germany has not made the same advance as certain other countries, from some points of view, but it is a noteworthy fact that the German rate of recovery has just moved slightly ahead of that of Great Britain, a factor which I regard as of great significance in existing conditions. Because of our geographical position we must always appeal to the European market, and accordingly it is a fair question to ask the Board of Trade what it is doing, so far as administrative action is possible, to hasten European recovery.
When we pass beyond that, the next point taken by the Balfour Committee as regards the change in the course of trade was the growth of industries in certain
parts of the world which formerly were largely concentrated in Great Britain, or industries in which, at all events, we were in a strong position to compete in the world markets. That revolution or change has been very much greater than we commonly imagine. A recent statement indicated that the industrial productivity or industrial capacity of the Argentine is three or four times what it was in 1913, and while it is true that Great Britain has made a certain advance in the Argentine market and in South America within recent times, the President of the Board of Trade ought undoubtedly to have qualified the observation he made by referring to the change in the respective positions of the United States and of Great Britain in that market. In the next place, we are all familiar with the great -development of industry in India, more particularly the cotton and other textile industries. In countries like India, Brazil and the Argentine there has been a large scale development of these factories, leading to the very serious question whether under the best conditions we in Great Britain are likely to recover to the full extent the markets we formerly enjoyed there.
At this stage, a more important consideration emerges, What contribution are we to make within the British Empire itself? I have already recalled that we enjoy a large percentage of Empire trade, but I have indicated that in some ways that percentage is weakening, particularly as a result of American competition in some quarters. I am speaking here purely from an economic point of view, and not from party considerations. It is suggested that there is some kind of antithesis or bed rock competition between Imperial and international trade. I do not regard that as a correct view of the situation. We have no immediate and practical jurisdiction within the foreign countries of the world, but we have a very large range of influence within the Empire itself, and, irrespective of party, one fact stands out, namely, that much of the most valuable untilled territory for the purposes of economic progress lies within the British Empire. Therefore, it is the plain duty of all who are interested in economic progress to see that that territory is developed and cultivated on sound and humane lines with the least
possible delay. Such a development would be a starting point for a more effective appeal in what, for the purposes of this Debate, I will call the foreign market, or the ordinary international sphere. On that point there is now a mass of evidence accumulating on that point which I should like to see more closely studied by all sections of industry and commerce in this country.
May I now turn to the purely domestic aspect of the case of the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon? All these things as to the development of trade within the Empire and in the international sphere may be perfectly true, but what are we doing within Great Britain to make the structure of our industry more efficient and to bring it into line with the undeniable changes in other countries in the world and into keeping with the enormously increased public and other burdens which we have to carry in post-War conditions? The President of the Board of Trade indicated that he was a believer in the extension of the combine, the syndicate and the trust. In two of the volumes of the Balfour Committee's Reports we have abundant material on that point. Within the limits of this Debate one cannot make any reference to legislation, but one can certainly state a number of the facts which emerge from these reports and refer to the possibility of certain administrative action. Broadly speaking, the vertical and the horizontal trusts have both made considerable progress in Great Britain. These reports point to certain industries in which they are getting down, by one stage after another, to the ownership or control of the raw material itself, and they are adding to that very great distributive power in the market.
It may be perfectly true that there are only a limited number of industries in which that vertical progress, coupled with the power of distribution, in which there is no real competition, is complete, but the number of industries in that position is tending to grow. Side by side with that there are innumerable "gentlemen's agreements," pooling arrangements, price associations, organisations for the regulation of output, and a great number of other real and definite bargains of a more or less permanent character, together with many terminating or shorter-period associations. The
President of the Board of Trade so far agrees with us in welcoming a development of that kind. Unfortunately, we are precluded this afternoon by the Rules of the House from stating what we believe to be the inevitable result of the process and what we regard as the inevitable solution, but taking the situation as it is there is this growth of agreements and syndicates and combines and trusts, and the question arises as to whether the mass of the people at home and the service of our Imperial and international trade are getting the benefit of these changes. It is rather remarkable that they should be Welcomed by many hon. Members on the other side of the House, because those reports prove that in the great majority of cases the combines have been formed, or the agreements, for the express purpose of getting rid of competitions in existing conditions. No doubt a stimulus was provided by the changes which have come about following the War, and by the burden of taxation and the rest, but in the main they appreciate the futility of continuing any longer their competition either within home markets or in markets outside.
We are so far on our way; but there is a certain danger for the mass of the people which cannot be overlooked. If hon. Members add up all these agreements and these combinations of recent years, surely it is fair to suggest, even making allowance for the industrial depression, that the advantages of the resulting economies should be much more conspicuous in our price level in Great Britain than they are. I do not see the price level falling to any appreciable extent, and I rather think it is true, as is argued by certain schools of economic thought, that the advantages and the benefits of this form of combination are tending to flow mainly to the people who are in power or in control, and are not passing out to the millions of British consumers, and I am not sure that the advantages are being expressed to the full extent in our competition with other countries in which somewhat similar industrial reorganisation has taken place. Beyond all question, certain of these combinations have a definitely restrictive character in their effect upon the mass of the people.
I will take two illustrations at the present day. Both of them are quoted
in the Balfour Committee's Report. There is the Proprietary Article Trades Association, on the one hand, and the British United Shoe Machinery Company on the other. Remember that the object of industry acting along these lines, according to the views of hon. Members opposite, should be the definite service of the consumer. But as regards probably 5,000 articles coming within the first scheme there is a definite arrangement which prohibits the supply of these articles to retailers unless they are prepared to sell them at a certain price. In point of fact, any retailer who does not agree to those terms will not be able to obtain his supplies. In the case of the British United Shoe Machinery Company there is an agreement or an arrangement in the boot manufacturing trade in Great Britain under which, for all practical purposes, there is a prohibition on the introduction of other and, for all I know, probably better machinery. That operates over a large part of that industry. The rules and the regulations of the organisation make the introduction of other machinery—it is leased to the manufacturers—virtually impossible.
This action has been raised administratively with the Board of Trade within recent times. It raises a fundamental question of law and economic practice in this country. Some of us on this side of the Committee have taken up the question with the Board of Trade and they suggest—I mention this only in passing—that they have no legislative power of an anti-trust character to deal with the problem. But let us look at the purely administrative side. The real contest is between sanctity of contract, between these people and the people who have made a bargain with them on the one hand and an act which many of us would describe as in restraint of trade on the other. Apparently the tendency in many quarters is to lean rather to the sanctity of contract. I am the last to dispute that the trust movement and combinations must proceed in Great Britain. For my part, looking to the ultimate solution, I want them to go on and to make all the progress they can, but as an immediate duty what does the Board of Trade propose to do in an issue of that kind? After all, there are certain administrative powers, and there is some kind of influence which the Gov-
ernment short of legislation can exercise where trade is being definitely restricted by the existence of a device of that character.
One word more on the general position of this world development. In Great Britain we are in rather a different position from the United States and Germany. The Balfour Committee points out that the United States has tended in legislation to take up a line hostile to the trusts, whereas in Germany the tendency has been rather to give that development a form of State assistance. The British attitude has been different. We have not had the development of the trust and the combine to anything like the same extent, and, accordingly, we have watched the process more as spectator without any kind of legislation or other interference with trade. Therefore, we have to depend upon the administrative efforts of the Board of Trade in regard to such parts of the problem as they can touch. I think the Government and the Board of Trade are open to the criticism that if they want to secure better organisation and to use our administrative machinery in the interest of the unemployed, the Board should give more direction and leadership in rationalisation than it is giving at the present time. One of the tragedies of the present situation is that we get all these reports, books, and documents dealing with overseas trade and they do not seem to reach more than a small fraction of the parties interested in trade; nor do they seem to be run for all they are worth administratively by the Government.
I would now like to say one or two words of a general character. I do not think that there is any reason in the world why any of us at the moment should give way to despair regarding the prospects of British trade. After all, what is to be the real test in the near future in regard to the distribution of the world's commerce? We cannot consider the speech of the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon without thinking of the broad proposition that to a very large extent the contest is going to lie between ourselves and the United States. Germany is coming up to an appreciable extent, but at the moment the two countries which figure
at the head of these tables are the United States, which is now enjoying the first place in the world's commerce, and this country. The only prospect according to certain schools is an undeniable competition with some kind of feeling that good will ultimately result. I cannot regard that as a likely development. It is true that if the United States had used its very great gold power within recent times it might have made a greater inroad in certain markets of the world. The policy adopted by the United States has tended to sterilise that gold; in fact, they have pursued a somewhat cautious policy. This test still remains in certain schools of thought.
I believe the correct answer to this problem has been given by Mr. George Peel in his book on "The Economic Impact of America," in which there is a careful analysis of America's position in the world's commerce. It deals specially with the position of men and women who are unemployed in Great Britain. We should regard The United States of America—and in this view there is the co-operation of at least a section of American opinion—as largely trustee and steward in the interests of world recovery and especially of European recovery. As applied to America it may be suggested that that is an economic ideal. I think the time is coming when the importance of American and European co-operation will be far more pronounced and far clearer than it is under existing conditions. Mr. Peel's conclusion was not one of impact but of compact. So far as we can encourage that spirit under the administration of the Board of Trade, I believe we are rendering a great service to world restoration, because we are bringing the undeniable strength and prosperity of the new world to the happiness and the prosperity of the war-exhausted old world.

Mr. RAMSDEN: I should like to call attention to the procedure which is followed with regard to the Safeguarding of Industries. I think it is generally agreed, by those who have had any experience of safeguarding, that the present procedure is far too cumbersome. If there had been any doubt about this, it must have been removed by a number of recent reports dealing with certain
industries which have been examined by Committees appointed by the Board of Trade. I should like to make it clear that in the remarks I am making I am not criticising the personnel of the Committees so much as the methods by which they have to do their work. Their hands are tied by the rules and regulations laid down for them by the Board of Trade. These reports show that the tests laid down by these rules and regulations make it very difficult for any industry to get through them. One of the recent reports referred to the application made by the granite industry, which has failed because that industry has been unable to satisfy the first test laid down by the Board of Trade with regard to the size and importance of the industry. That is one test which I feel very strongly should have no place whatsæver in any examination of this kind. After all, the size and importance of any industry seems to me to be a very unfair way of judging whether it should be safeguarded or not. If we allow an industry to be completely swept away by foreign competition, then, naturally, one is left with an industry which is of no importance whatever to this country. If this is going to be maintained as one of the tests, and if we are going to allow industries to be destroyed by foreign competition, it is certain that, if this process is continued long enough, none of those industries will be able to overcome Test No. 1.
The granite industry was not considered to be of sufficient importance to be allowed to come in. I grant that this industry is not a very important one compared with many other larger industries, but, from the Report issued by the Committee, I find that 650 more workpeople would have been employed if some means had been adopted to keep out the foreign goods which at present are allowed to come into this country. The state of the labour market, and the large number of unemployed that we still have in this country, makes it important that we should consider the claim even of an industry of this kind. After all, 650 additional workers at £3 a week which is given in the Report as the average wage of those employed in this industry, makes a difference of just under £100,000 a year in wages.
This sum which at the present moment is being paid to the foreigner, could very well have been paid to our own people, thus providing work and wages for our own workers. There is another report of a Committee which again goes to show how impracticable and unfair are the tests which the Committees have to apply—I refer to the Report of the Hosiery Committee. Here it was found that the applicant industry was one of substantial importance, and that it was effectively run.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. RAMSDEN: it was decided by this Committee that the hosiery trade was one of importance, and, as far as cotton hosiery and underwear were concerned, it was found that similar goods were being imported in abnormal quantities into this country, and that the wages paid abroad for the manufacture of those goods were much lower than the wages paid for the manufacture of similar goods in this country. In the next place, it was shown that these goods were being sold at such a price that our manufacturers were not able to compete with them, and yet the Committee reported that
Employment in the manufacture or production of the goods to which the application relates is not at present being seriously affected, nor was sufficient evidence put before us to satisfy us that serious unemployment was likely to arise in the future.
In view of the decision at which they had arrived with regard to the quantity of goods imported, the wages paid, and also the efficiency and importance of the industry, it does appear to me very curious indeed that they were not able to recommend that this industry should be safeguarded. All the more is that so when we find that, as far as cotton hosiery is concerned, according to the evidence given before this Committee, in the year 1927, 3,270,566 dozen pairs of cotton hose were imported, of a value of £1,278,983. The rules to which the Committee have to work are certainly very difficult, but it does look as though in this case they had made them still more severe.
Before I finish referring to particular instances, I should like to quote also the
Committee that inquired into an application made by the manufacturers of buttons, hooks and eyes, and snap fasteners. That Committee decided that in one of these cases, namely, that of buttons, they could make a recommendation urging that a duty should be applied. I suppose we ought to congratulate ourselves upon this fact. As regards the other industries that applied, the Committee decided that they could make no recommendation. Here, again, I should like to point out that in this case—I quote the words of the Report—
The Committee think that wages are so different in the main competing countries from those which are enforced by a trade board in this country as to render the competition unfair.
Nevertheless, in that case again, as the applicants failed to satisfy the other tests, they were turned down. Many other instances could be given of the effect of the rules laid down in Command Paper 2327. If further proof be required, one only needs to observe the small number of industries that have managed, first of all, to establish a prima facie case before the Board of Trade, and, secondly, have been able to obtain recommendations from a Committee. The fact is that industries are now becoming afraid to apply. The chances of success are so small under present conditions, and the expense involved in going before a Committee is so great, that they do not feel that they are justified in applying for safeguarding, although they realise that it would help the industry very much, and would also provide a considerable amount of employment.
There is another thing to which I should like to refer in connection with these inquiries, and that is that very frequently the fact that an applicant industry is carrying on an export trade seems to be one of the reasons, if the export trade is of any importance, for not granting safeguarding. I am very much afraid that the committees do not inquire into the destination of the exports that leave this country. I think that in every case they should do so, because I believe that, in certain industries, it is easier for manufacturers to sell their goods in one of our Dominions or Colonies where preference is given to them than it is in this market, which is unsheltered. Therefore, in estimating the value of the exports and deciding
what relation they bear to the imports, I think that every committee should consider very carefully in what countries the exports are sold.
I should like to recommend every Member of the House to try to attend some of these inquiries held by safeguarding committees. I believe that, if they did, they would be considerably surprised, and that they might at the same time receive rather a severe shock. I had the opportunity of attending such an inquiry some time ago. I found that the people there who were opposing the application were typical of those who are to be found at every such inquiry. Those who were opposing the application seemed to consist of merchants, importers and agents who earned their livelihood by selling foreign goods in this country. I am certain that in no other country in the world could such a situation be found, nor would any other country in the world tolerate that, when people were trying to improve their industry and provide more employment for their own people, the opposition should in the main come from foreigners, or representatives of foreign firms, or those interested in the sale of such goods. In every case it will be found, on going through the list of witnesses and opponents of the application, that there were present persons who were really representing not British, but foreign interests.
I desire to plead for simplicity in the rules and regulations which apply to safeguarding. I quite realise that the Government must keep the pledges which they have made, but, if they cannot decide to alter them during the lifetime of the present Parliament, I sincerely hope that it will be possible for them in the near future to announce that they will ask the country for powers to deal with this matter on a larger and wider basis after the next General Election. I am certain that it will be very easy to do this, and that the present very cumbersome tests could be easily replaced by two which would cover everything of importance that is contained in Command Paper 2327. The two tests which I would suggest, and which I regard as of equal importance, are, first, whether the application of safeguarding would provide more employment in the industry; and, second—and, as I have said, I consider this of equal im-
portance—whether it would adversely and seriously affect employment in any other industry. If the first of these tests could be replied to in the affirmative and the second in the negative, there is not the slightest doubt that safeguarding could be safely granted to the applicant industry. This matter is of the very greatest importance, and I hope that the Government will make their policy with regard to it known as soon as they possibly can.

Sir R. THOMAS: I do not propose to take up much of the time of the Committee, and, as a matter of fact, at one time I was almost persuaded to say nothing at all, but the right hon. Gentle-made what was in my opinion one very serious omission in his otherwise very lucid and instructive speech. Figures are always correct in themselves as such, but it depends entirely upon who uses them. I can congratulate the President of the Board of Trade upon his consummate skill in proving by figures that trade is flourishing when it was never in a worse plight. It is very significant that in his speech he omitted to refer to one of our greatest industries, namely, shipping—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): My right hon. Friend certainly pointed out the low level of shipping freights.

Sir R. THOMAS: —I am not referring to freights so much as to the volume of cargoes. The right hon. Gentleman omitted to mention that shipping to-day is not suffering so much from low freights as from lack of cargoes; on that point he did not say a single word. As my hon. Friend who is now in charge on the Government Bench knows quite well, there are two classes of shipping, namely, the tramp ship and the liner. The prosperity or otherwise of the tramp ship is the first indication in the barometer of trade. The tramp ship is the first to feel an approaching slump, and it is also the first to realise a rise in trade. I am sorry to have to say, as a shipowner and as one closely interested in trade, that there is no sign of any such rise to-day. Since the slump after the War, there has never been such a serious state of affairs in the shipping industry as that which exists to-day. Tramp tonnage is lying up in all the ports of our country,
and there is unemployment consequent upon that, but, apart from that, the fact that these ships are laid up is an indication that there is no foreign trade moving, and yet the right hon. Gentleman comes down with his figures showing that things are booming, that exports are exceeding imports year by year. One would think, from what he says, that we are living in a veritable El Dorado. Although we have 1,100,000 unemployed in the land to-day, and although we have shipping laid up and congesting our ports, he still comes down to the House perfectly happy and contented, saying, "See what a wonderful prosperous country we are."
Really, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Government must get down to brass tacks; they must find out what the trouble is. It is no use coming here with figures and trying to prove something which does not exist. The fact is that the trade of this country has never been in such a bad state as that in which it is to-day. I am an optimist by nature. Every Celt is an optimist. The hon. Gentleman is a Celt, and I suppose that that is why he exerts such a great influence in making his right hon. Friend so optimistic. But really, in business, we cannot afford to let our imagination go; we must come down to actualities; and the actuality to-day is that this country is going from bad to worse, and the sooner we realise it, and endeavour to find out where the trouble lies, the better I think it is not out of place to suggest to my hon. Friend that a Committee of Inquiry should be instituted.
6.0 p.m.
How is it to-day that those ships which are sailing the seas, when they come to pass their periodical survey, as they have to do every four years, they have, if they are in a British port, to leave that British port from sheer necessity. It is not for the love of shifting, because shifting costs money, but from sheer necessity they have to be taken to Rotterdam and Antwerp to get the necessary repairs done in order that they may pass survey. Shipowners have to live, and they have to repair their ships and pass survey in the cheapest port. There is something radically wrong with costs in this country to-day. To give an instance, let me take the Port of London. For a 7,000-tonner it will cost, in the Port of London, £1,500
or thereabouts—my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—to discharge a cargo; but that same cargo from a similar sized ship can be discharged at Antwerp or Rotterdam for £500. [Interruption.] The hon. Member must join the Committee of Inquiry which I am suggesting. There are certainly reasons for the high costs which prevail in this country, and which are operating against every branch of our trade, and I would suggest once again to my hon. Friend that, instead of coming here with figures which really do not demonstrate the position of our trade to-day, the Government should hold an inquiry and investigate the causes of the high costs of production and operating, and should try to diagnose the disease. Let us find out what it is that is operating against this country and in favour of Continental trade. I have an office at Antwerp; I employ many men there. There is not a man or woman unemployed in Belgium to-day—and this is the ironical part of it. Belgium to-day has her franc stabilised. She got into that happy position by British credit, and from a business point of view she is in a happier position than we are. That is a matter that this Government should inquire into very carefully. The same thing applies to many other Continental countries. There is no unemployment in Holland. Every shipbuilding yard there is full of orders for the next four years. What about this country? There is not a shipbuilding yard which could not lay down a ship, if not more than one ship. Why do these things exist? There is a good reason for inquiry, and I submit that the hon. Gentleman should bring it to the serious notice of the President.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I am afraid the hon. Baronet has allowed his own very unfortunate experience in using figures to warp his mind altogether. Not very long ago, he said the losses of the Scottish herring industry, owing to the absence of the Russian market, exceeded £1,000,000. I am afraid the devastating criticism of his statement on that occasion has succeeded in making him mistrust figures generally.

Sir R. THOMAS: I admitted at the time that I was not an expert, but I also said I depended for my information on
someone else, who unfortunately misled me. In regard to this matter I am in the business.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I was only pointing out that I was afraid the hon. Baronet's unfortunate experience on that occasion had allowed his mind to become prejudiced against figures as such. Perhaps in the future he will become reconciled to the judicious use of figures. We have listened to-day to two very interesting speeches, an analysis by the President of the Board of Trade, very cogent, clear and comprehensive, of the general trade condition and the position in which the country finds itself, and a speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), as usual of extraordinary lucidity and very great interest. I do not think there is any cause for great discouragement about the trade position of the country to-day for two reasons. First of all, I do not think it is generally recognised to what an extent we are—what I may perhaps describe as a "rentier" nation, living to a certain extent upon the proceeds of profitable investments made abroad. Our accumulated foreign investments, which have not substantially diminished as compared with pre-War days, enable us to maintain a very large excess of visible imports over exports. A great many of these imports are due to us as interest on our foreign investments. Our foreign investments are colossal. That a cause of satisfaction, and it is a cause of particular satisfaction that they are not substantially less to-day than they were in 1914. A large part of our pre-War exports were not required to pay far imports, and therefore represented fresh foreign investments. Accordingly, if at any time our exports were to fall off to an alarming extent, we could retrieve the situation temporarily, without a serious outflow of gold, by slightly modifying the extent of our foreign investments. That, I think, should be a source of satisfaction to us, and our position as the second largest investor abroad of any nation in the world should cause us still more satisfaction.
The second cause for satisfaction which seems to me to present itself is the great and increasing prosperity of very many of what I may call our lighter and more technical industries. You get to-day in the distributing trades, and also in such
industries as artificial silk, the gramophone industry, the motor-car industry and the higher and more technical forms of electrical engineering, a very great degree of prosperity, showing enterprise and skill on the part of the manufacturers of those commodities, and I believe in the course of the next 10 or 15 years the manufacture of those commodities will develop enormously and that those classes of industry will absorb an even greater number of our people into employment. I am not going into the question of shipping at the moment, because I believe that depends on the general state of our export trade, but the only cause for real anxiety with regard to the internal economic position of the country is the position of our heavy industries, coal, iron and steel, and cotton being those principally affected. I have always held, and I hold now, that the most urgent requirement of modern times is the reconstruction, or as some will have it, the "rationalisation" of our heavy industries, and I should like to say how much I, and many of us on this side, and perhaps some on all sides of the House, agree with what was said by the President of the Board of Trade, when he welcomed the tendency towards combination and amalgamation in the heavy industries. I think he was right when he challenged the Labour party to clarify its attitude on this question, because I have heard over and over again speeches from the Opposition Benches advocating and supporting the idea of a reconstruction of our heavy industries by means of amalgamation on a large scale, and "rationalisation," and then, on the very next clay, I have heard hostile questions, to the Minister of Mines for example, with regard to amalgamations that have taken place in the coal industry.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Surely the hon. Member does not compare the two-county or five-county scheme for selling coal with the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman to-day? What the right hon. Gentleman suggests is that the whole of the steel producers ought to amalgamate into one concern for selling purposes, and have you not a dozen county schemes operating?

Mr. BOOTHBY: My answer to that would, of course, be that the iron industry, and I think also the coal industry,
ought to have one single agency for exporting, but you cannot do it in one jump. You have to go stage by stage. You have to set it up from the beginning. I suppose the highest developed form of organisation in the coal industry is the Rhenish-Westphalian Coal Syndicate. They started to do that in the last century. They began tinkering with the organisation about 1896. It took then 15 or 16 years to develop anything like the modern organisation, and, even so, in the course of the last two or three years they have been able to improve it out of all recognition. I do not believe you can do these things in one jump. I welcome the five-county scheme, and still more the Scottish scheme, which seems to me to be based on more scientific and better lines. I should welcome any scheme upon a district basis, because I believe you must get these schemes into full operation and working well before you can hope to get on to a national basis. It is only by the proper organisation of the coal industry, district by district first of all, that you can ever hope to get it on to a national basis for selling purposes later on. You must do it step by step.
For that reason, I welcome most cordially all the developments that have taken place in the coal industry during the last 18 months. They are fraught with great possibilities for the future of the country, and if the hon. Member would really study the Scottish scheme, he would find in it, if he allowed himself to approach it with an open mind, a great deal of which he could whole-heartedly approve. I think hon. Members' minds are prejudiced because they are made anxious by the number of men who are thrown out of employment as each successive wave of amalgamation which involves the scrapping of uneconomic pits takes place. It is natural that those who represent mining districts should be anxious, but there are some of us who believe the mining industry cannot support more than about 900,000 men, and at present it contains about 1,200,000. That being the case, though we should like, if possible, to see provision made for those who are thrown out of the industry, we must recognise that there are a number of men for whom no employment is available in the industry at
a decent wage. But I think the President is quite right in appealing to hon. Members opposite to make up their minds on which horse they are going to gallop. Are they going to gallop on the amalgamation, nationalisation, combination horse, or the anti-trust horse, because they cannot have it both ways. I have no doubt which horse I am going to choose, and have chosen for some time past.
I should like to say a word or two as to the actual position of trusts and amalgamations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh talked about the sanctity of contract as opposed to restraint of trade. The legal position with regard to amalgamation is very peculiar. I believe the speech of the President of the Board of Trade in itself would be sufficient to cause a Judge of the High Court to alter his mind if a case were now to be brought before him. There have been some amazingly contradictory judgments given in the High Court on this question the last few years. Some amalgamations have been held quite arbitrarily by the High Court Judges to be in restraint of trade, and I believe there was a judgment of Mr. Justice Eve some time ago, in which he quite expressly laid down that any large combination must be in restraint of trade. There have been other judgments of the High Court which have held that the contract had to be upheld, and there was no question of restraint whatever. From that point of view the right hon. Gentleman's speech in itself may have made a difference. The position is anomalous, and it ought to be cleared up. We have in the last two or three years passed Acts of Parliament to prohibit the banks from amalgamating, to force railways to amalgamate, and to enable mines to amalgamate. It is a very peculiar position, and I think the President of the Board of Trade, having gone so far, having so nobly expressed himself in favour of the idea of amalgamations and combinations, ought to give his mind still further to this matter, and endeavour, if he can, to clear up the position satisfactorily from the point of view of all concerned. At any rate, I do hope we shall not, in the future, go in for any antitrust agitation such as has gone on in the United States, as I believe that the
course which has been pursued in Germany of assisting and enabling in every possible way these amalgamations to become more efficient has proved more profitable from a practical point of view.
There is only one other point I would like to make at this stage, and it is this. There is a great difference between amalgamation in the heavy industries and amalgamation in the light industries. The heavy industries—I refer to coal, iron and steel particularly—may be said at the present time to have a potential production in excess of demand. That is not the case in the lighter and more technical industries. When you get that situation obtaining it means that your demand is more or less estimable, and therefore you are, or should be, enabled to stabilise more or less both the production and the price of the commodity in question. The significant thing about the position of our country to-day is that we are making by far the greatest progress in amalgamation—in rationalisation if you like—and with astonishingly successful results in the lighter industries, in the cotton trade, in silk, and in jute. I could quote at least half-a-dozen others to show that we have made the greatest possible progress in those industries where it is not so urgently required. It is in those industries which, in my opinion, require amalgamation most urgently that we have been delayed and tend to lag behind. What has been the cause of this? I believe that the causes are two or three, of which over-capitalisation is one.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Has my hon. Friend noticed the fact that in this country over-capitalisation is almost the invariable accompaniment of amalgamation?

Mr. BOOTHBY: On that point I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that is the case. I do not think, for example, that Imperial Chemicals to-day is over-capitalised.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I know that it is.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I am equally certain that there are a great number of cotton mills in Lancashire to-day, and also a great many small colliery companies, which are enormously over-capitalised, which on the present basis, will not be
able to get going again. In the cotton, coal and iron and steel industries there are many firms in this condition, as a result of the riot of 1920, and the sooner they make up their minds, and the sooner the banks make up their minds, that their capital has got to be written down, practically to scratch, the better.

Mr. HOPKINSON: May I call my hon. Friend's attention to the cotton trade where one of the biggest amalgamations has just reduced its capital most drastically to avoid bankruptcy?

Mr. BOOTHBY: That seems to be another argument in favour of large amalgamations as against small firms.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does the hon. Gentleman say that capital does not increase trade?

Mr. BOOTHBY: It seems to me that if we car put our industries upon a really sound financial basis it is bound to increase the trade and prosperity of this country in future. But if the hon. Baronet seriously contends that you can properly, with advantage to the nation and the country as a whole, continue upon a false financial basis of over-capitalistion, and allow all our industries to remain with capital quoted far above its real value, I can only say that I profoundly disagree with him. I think there is another cause. I believe that the attitude of the banks has to a certain extent been to blame in this matter during the last three or four years. The Prime Minister indicated in that very remarkable and I think a very courageous speech that he made to the cotton spinners at Manchester that it might be a good thing for the banks to agree that they themselves will have to bear a small portion at any rate of the loss. I think that the banks will have to make up their minds to do that. I think that the banks are keeping afloat far too many "dud" companies at the present time, which will require to be drastically reorganised or else go under. The sooner the Joint Stock Banks make up their minds on this point, and the more pressure the Board of Trade can bring to bear on them, the better.
Lastly, I think that the natural and very admirable conservatism and independence of some of our manufacturers has been the cause of our failure in some
cases to make such progress in the reorganisation and reconstruction of our heavy industries as has been made in other countries, particularly in the United States and in Germany. It is particularly noticeable that the coal-owners find it very difficult to arrive at the agreement which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) was advocating. But at the same time I do not believe that it is beyond the bounds of possibility. I believe that for the first time, to a large extent owing to speeches and efforts of the Prime Minister, there is in these particular industries, and amongst those who run them, a growing realisation of the necessity for reconstruction and amalgamation on the widest possible scale.
I would like to revert for a moment to the conditions which obtain in Germany at the present time. The late Mr. Walter Rathenau is the man who was more responsible for the reconstruction of modern German industry than anyone. He summed up the objective of modern industrial organisation in a single sentence. He said that it was the scientific concentration of firms within one industry for the execution of common functions by means of a central and independent executive without—and I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh to this final sentence—in any way impinging upon the principle of private ownership. That was the conception of the late Mr. Walter Rathenau, and he carried his conception into force and into practice with very remarkable and astonishing results. The rationalisation of German industry, and the formation of the central executives, had a profound and beneficial effect both upon the development of industry in Germany and the relations of those engaged in it. A Trade Survey Institute was set up about the same time, to supply information to German industrialists, a very large and comprehensive scheme of export credits was instituted, and freight reductions were introduced on the lines indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. Central advisory industrial councils were also set up, and in this respect I think we may be permitted
to hope for something to emerge from what has become known as the Mond Industrial Conference.
I am perfectly certain that these central industrial advisory councils set up by industries in Germany have been of immense benefit not only in the development of German industry as such, but in the development of better relations between those engaged in the industry, and, finally, immense power plants were set up district by district long before our Electricity Bill was even thought of. So you may say they have developed a national system without the clogging and cloying hindrance of national ownership. You see the result of these developments in Germany, a large part of which took place within a period of nine months between 1923 and 1924. The output of pig-iron increased from 4,936,000 tons in 1923 to 7,812,000 tons in 1924. The output of steel ingots increased from 6,305,000 tons to 9,836,000 tons and finished steel products increased from 5,486,000 tons to 8,174,000. That is the result obtained within a year of putting these methods and these ideas into practice.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the Ruhr Valley is included?

Mr. BOOTHBY: All these increases took place after the French evacuated the Ruhr. Not only did the increases take place, but there was in process of reorganisation and reconstruction the whole of the Ruhr Valley during that particular period. There is only one other point I should like to mention, and that is the necessity for securing adequate information and statistics for our industrialists and traders. Unfortunately, at the present time in this respect we are very far behind the United States of America. Here is a matter which directly concerns the administrative staff of the Board of Trade, and I would like to direct the urgent attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to it. I would like to refer him for a moment to one or two sayings of Mr. Hoover in the United States. Mr. Hoover took office as Secretary of Commerce in the United States with the observation that a remarkable transformation of the whole super-organisation of their economic life was in progress, and he set himself, from the very outset, to direct the course of industry and trade in the United States
with astonishing results, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. Statistics, the like of which have never been seen before and which indeed are unknown in this country or in any European country, have been pumped out by Mr. Hoover under this system to traders, merchants and industrialists all over the United States—weekly, monthly, bi-annually and yearly, collected by his agents not only over the United States of America, but over the whole world, and made available at the public expense for every single industrialist and trader who cares to avail himself of the information they contain.
His example has been followed by many traders and industrial institutions and firms all over the United States. You have not only got a magnificent statistical system in the Department of Commerce there, but that example has been taken up. Take the case of the Stock Exchange. The information furnished by the New York Stock Exchange upon every single company and of the affairs of every single company operating in the United States far exceeds the information available on the London Stock Exchange. If any hon. Gentleman cares to compare the statistics of the detailed information which any member of the New York Stock Exchange can get about any single company in the world, including our own companies, he will find they are far clearer, fuller and more up-to-date than the information published in cur Stock Exchange guides. I merely instance that as an example of how private enterprise and industry can go on and develop as a result of the example such as that set by Mr. Hoover. I must quote, for the edification of the hon. Gentleman, a short paragraph from an article which appeared in the "Times" a few weeks ago upon this very subject, and upon the subject of Mr. Hoover. When Mr. Hoover took office, this article said:
An appalling waste was going on. One industry was making 66 varieties of paving bricks, of which a bare half-dozen accounted for five-sixths of its annual turnover—now there are four. So it was with ironmongery, shoes, ploughs, timber, textiles, bath-room and electric fixtures, and many more. By the standardising of commodities the utilisation of waste products, the minimising of business abuses, the development of new products, and in a score of other ways a saving to industry and the nation impossible to calculate has been made. And this is only the beginning of the tale of the achievements of one extraordinary man,
guiding and inspiring the work of as alert and able a body of specialists as perhaps has even been gathered together.
I want to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade develop into the Mr. Hoover of Great Britain. I believe that he has it in him to do that. Let him concentrate upon what Mr. Hoover has actually done. Let him concentrate upon that article in the "Times." Let him really set his mind up in supplying our traders and industrialists and merchants, and, above all, our bankers, with that information which Mr. Hoover supplies in the United States. Let him get a move on. I understand that he is presiding over a Committee on standardisation. That is one of the first essentials at the present time, and it affords a great opportunity for him to begin a work which will make his name and fame re-echo through the twentieth century.
What about the immediate future development of trade and industry in this country? I believe that any rationalisation upon a large scale in this country, such as is in process of coming about at the present time, will inevitably be followed by international agreements upon a fairly large scale. I have spoken on this subject in the House before and I am not going to develop the theme now, but it is quite obvious that there is a limit to the consumption of coal and raw iron in Europe. That being the case, it is wholly desirable that at some stage the great coal and iron producing countries of Europe should come together, in order to regulate the production, and to maintain such a price for their products as will ensure a decent standard of living and a decent wage for those engaged in those particular industries. I do not think that any great future expansion or development of the coal or heavy iron industries in this country or in Europe as a whole is to be anticipated in the immediate future, unless much more progress is made in the scientific development of coal and in the development of coal into oil than can be expected at the present time. It is, however, only a question of time before we have some agreement on this matter in Europe. Germany, as we know, is more than anxious to come to some agreement in regard to coal and iron with this country.
Let me take one example of the kind of thing that is going on at the present
time. There is a substantial demand in Belgium for coking coal. The only two countries which produce coking coal are Germany and ourselves, but instead of coming to some agreement as to the price we are going to charge Belgium, this country and Germany are in the very fiercest competition. The result is that both sides are engaged at the present time in selling coking coal to Belgium at a hopelessly uneconomic price. Consequently, the Belgians are mingling the coking coal with the coal extracted from their own mines and are making steel at a very cheap price and are thereby able to knock out our own steel products, and those of Germany. It seems to me a more or less elementary proposition that the coal producers of this country and of Germany might come together and suggest that they should share the Belgian market at a fixed and remunerative price. The result would be that they would get a higher price for their product instead of producing it at a loss, and it would cost the Belgians more to produce the steel which is in competition with ours. I give that as an indication of the kind of nonsense which is going on in Europe at the present time.
I would like to make one final appeal in regard to the future trade and industrial development of this country. I think that world conditions at the present time render the mass production of low-grade goods upon anything like pre-War conditions increasingly difficult for us, because labour in foreign countries is content with lower wages than it is in this country. I am not blaming labour in this country for that. Therefore, we shall have to go in more and more for the expansion and development of the more refined industrial processes, employing the higher skilled workers, such as fine cotton spinning, artificial silk, and the electrical industry. It seems to me that in the development and expansion of these particular industries far the greatest market is afforded within the British Empire, and I was glad to hear that I had in that view the support of the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh. I agree with him that there is no reason on earth why international trade and Imperial trade should be mutually destructive, or
even highly competitive. There is no inherent conflict between the two, but in the development of the more highly skilled industries the British Empire affords us a far better market than Europe, which can produce these more refined articles in great quantities for itself. Our Dominions are still in the stage of developing their primary industries, but we have passed that stage, and are in the process of developing the more highly-skilled industries. Therefore, we might well do a deal with the Dominions and the Crown Colonies upon these lines, to provide for ourselves within the Empire a sheltered market for these particular classes of goods, which would enable us to compete with European producers with even greater efficiency and success in the future, than we are doing at the present time.
I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to consider the standardisation processes with which he is dealing, particularly from the Imperial and Empire point of view, because standardisation is more important for the development of Imperial trade in the course of the next few years than perhaps anything else. We ought to concentrate within the Empire upon the particular classes of produce which it is most suitable for any given part of the Empire to produce. For example—a Very crude example—what is the use of developing the wheat-growing industry in New Zealand or South Africa if Canada and Australia can supply all the wheat that we require? We need to concentrate upon particular parts of the Empire for providing other parts of the Empire with a given commodity, and specialising in that commodity.
It seems to me an extraordinary thing that we should have so many bodies in this country at the present time engaged in advising upon the development of inter-imperial trade. We have the Department of Overseas Trade, the Empire Marketing Board, the Imperial Economic Committee, and, on top of that, coming in and out at odd moments, we have the Food Council. There is no co-ordination between these various bodies. None of them has executive authority, but they have the widest advisory powers. The time has Dome when we ought to consider whether it is necessary to maintain the separate
existence of the Department of Overseas Trade, the Empire Marketing Board, the Imperial Economic Committee and the Food Council. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether these bodies overlap, how far any particular one is unnecessary, and whether it would not be better to form a single important Imperial Economic Committee, with a permanent secretariat, and containing representatives from the Dominions and other parts of the Empire, to co-ordinate and direct the channels of Imperial trade; because I am quite certain that it is in the rationalisation of our heavy industries, and the constructive development of the resources of the Empire that the chief hope for our future as an industrial trading community lies.

Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. Member who has just spoken, who found some difficulty in reaching his final conclusion, has suggested that if we could obtain sufficient information in respect of trade and could gather together sufficient statistics, we might improve matters. In that respect he follows the President of the Board of Trade, who devoted nine-tenths of his speech to a résumé of the statistical operations of his department. I suggest that however much you may succeed in compiling information in respect of national and international trade, you can never attack the real problem unless you can obtain some measure of control over both. That is the essence of the matter. I have no desire to follow the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) in his perambulations. It is much more substantial for the purpose of this debate to deal with the President of the Board of Trade. When he spoke—I regret his absence, although no doubt it is due to proper causes—I recalled an occasion in 1923, when I was formerly a Member of this House, where the right hon. Gentleman stood at that Box and made a speech in almost the same terms as he did this afternoon. Then, as now, he was full of optimism. He had just returned from a banquet at Belfast where, in the course of a post-prandial oration, he was most buoyant or flamboyant in respect to the possibilities of British industry. This afternoon, in precisely similar terms, he revealed his incurable optimism. Trade is growing
better and better every day. There is every reason to be encouraged. The hon. Member who spoke last made a reference to the encouragement which emanated from the President of the Board of Trade.
What is the test of this supposed improvement in trade? Is it to be found in statistics? Not at all. Is it to be found in rationalisation? Hardly. You can only test it by actual results. When I speak of results, I am not referring to mere production but the consumption and the spread of the consumption over the widest possible field, and here I come to what is the real test of improvement in British industry, namely, the wages of the working classes in this country. When wages are high and sufficient to enable the wage-earner to obtain the largest measure of the goods that are produced, there is a substantial improvement in British trade. If employment increases and if instead of there being a large number of people unemployed there are fewer unemployed, that means a substantial improvement in British trade, but the Parliamentary Secretary can hardly point to improvement in either direction. Wages have not gone up; they have gone down. Employment has not increased; it has decreased. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary, with great respect, to deal to seine extent with these two points. Unless he can show an improvement in respect of employment and remuneration, affording the wage-earner of this country all the employment necessary to enable him to earn wages, he can hardly find any measure of satisfaction in the statistics so elaborately compiled by his Department.
What is the outstanding feature of the present situation? Almost every speaker in this discussion, and one finds the same thing outside, on the platform, in the public Press, in the economic journals and the trade journals, a demand for the elimination of competition. We on these benches are the last to complain of that demand, for we have advocated the elimination of competition for a long time, recognising it to be wasteful and inefficient, and now that industrialists and financiers and politicians associated with the Conservative and Liberal parties advocate the elimination of competition, we cannot complain; we welcome it. We have to consider the direction in which
that leads us. May I remind hon. Members opposite that it is not sufficient to advocate the elimination of competition and substitute co-operation, or what is called rationalisation, unless you are prepared to recognise its full implications? If you examine the matter for a moment you will find that rationalisation as such—to use a common expression at the moment—is of no value to the great mass of the people of this or any other country.
We do not complain of rationalisation, as such, far from it. Rationalisation, cooperation, the elimination of competition in industry may well lead to greater economy in production and greater efficiency. Undoubtedly it does, but it may also—and I say it without reserve—lead to a more humane consideration for the workers engaged in those industries. But when you have reached that stage, assuming you do—it is subject to certain qualifications some of which have already been referred to—the workers are still without the wages which they believe to be necessary to proper living, and unemployment is rife. Rationalisation is insufficient. Let me give what I think is the reason. If you set a limit to consumption you are bound at the same time to set a limit to production. It is inevitable. If you say that the workers' wages will only enable them to buy a certain measure of production, clearly production will be limited sooner or later and, therefore, what is the purpose of producing more, developing your machinery, unless at the same time you spread that greater production over the widest possible area?

Mr. BOOTHBY: The hon. Member will forgive me, but he must admit that there are certain classes of goods upon which there is bound to be a limit to the consumable capacity of any country.

Mr. SHINWELL: I am not arguing for a moment in respect of certain goods that you could go on producing ad infinitum—far from it. There is an inevitable limitation in respect of certain industries, but I submit that we cannot consider production apart from consumption. Something was said in the course of the Debate on the Finance Bill and referred to in subsequent Debates about the analogy of a pair of scissors. Production and consumption are precisely in that position, and to do as hon. Mem-
bers suggest, promote rationalisation in the hope of finding a solution is following an elusive will-o'-the-wisp. Let me refer to the question of shipping raised by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Sir B. Thomas). I have never listened to a more inaccurate speech than that delivered by the hon. Member. That he should say that there is no unemployment in Belgium or Holland is, to say the least of it, drawing the long bow. There is unemployment, as hon. Members know, in these places, not perhaps so much as in this country or in Germany, but I happen to know that in Antwerp, referred to by the hon. Member, there is considerable unemployment among the seamen there. How it happened to escape the attention of the hon. Member who is a shipowner, I cannot understand, unless it is because shipowners very rarely know anything about the conditions of their men.
What is the real trouble in respect of shipping and shipbuilding? You cannot disassociate the two. A vast change has occurred in the shipping and shipbuilding position of this country. We are no longer the chief shipbuilding nation in the world. Japan is now building ships, whereas formerly she had them 'built in this country. The Scandinavian countries, and other countries as well, are now building more of the ships they require for their own use than before. It is true that we are still producing, proportionately, the largest amount of ships, but, having regard to the national capacity for production, having regard to the greater volume of world trade and the increase in world population, having regard to the general expansion, we do not occupy to-day the position which we occupied in the past. There is another cause, and I would direct the particular attention of hon. Members to this. The hon. Member for Anglesey spoke of the tramp steamer. Tramps are not so important on the high seas as they once were, they are slowly giving place to the liner, which is carrying a larger volume of trade than ever.
There is another factor which is operating. Liners formerly used coal as fuel; now they are using oil, and to that extent have a greater volume of cargo space. All these factors are operating, and to the extent that they do operate it means that fewer ships are required.
That is the reason why the tramp steamer is not doing as well as formerly, and the reason why shipbuilding companies are not producing tramp steamers. As far as the liner trade is concerned, it is more flourishing than ever. It has gained where the tramp steamer has lost. I do not propose to follow that line any further, but to come to what I think are one or two constructive suggestions. While we on these benches recognise the inevitability of rationalisation, we point to its implications, namely, the nationalisation of the basic industries of this country, a matter which I cannot pursue within the limits of this Debate, and international agreements. Since I cannot speak about nationalisation ha respect of our basic industries, I want to say a word or two about international agreements. Take coal. You cannot disassociate the coal position from the genera] trade position, nor can you disassociate the national coal position from the international coal position. They are associated in the closest possible way.
What steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to promote international agreements, particularly in respect of coal? It has been said that the coalowners will never agree, on this side or in Belgium or Germany, to any European agreement. The same statement was made in respect of the co-operative coal selling in this country only two years ago by the coalowners on the Co-operative Coal Sales Committee. They argued against the co-operation of this country, contending that it would be disastrous and prejudicial to their interests. They have now accepted it, and no doubt hon. Members opposite will say that these arrangements, these coordinated efforts, are now advantageous. I believe the time is approaching—it must inevitably approach—when a European agreement must be effected in respect of coal distribution and sales throughout Europe, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bring before the notice of his right hon. Friend the very positive suggestion that an effort should be made to bring together the coalowners of this country and the coalowners of Europe for the purpose of discussing the proposal. I go no further than that at this stage, I say that we ought to be discussing the matter. I do not pretend
that it would solve the miners' problem in this country—far from it. I think reorganisation is necessary on much more advanced lines, but, at the same time, it would be a step in the right direction.
My second point is this. We are menaced, we are told, by foreign competition. For the moment, I express no opinion about foreign competition in general, but time and again hon. Members opposite direct our attention, quite properly in many instances, to the low wages paid to the workpeople in European countries. That, surely, requires some consideration by the Board of Trade and the Government, and I suggest that here again the Government might take steps to promote discussions, the end of which should be the setting up of international agreements in respect of wages and conditions for European workers. If there were time I might criticise the Government because of their failing in connection with the Washington Hours' Convention, but this is not the proper moment, nor is the time available for it. But leaving the Washington Hours' Convention aside, I seriously suggest that some step might be taken, some approach might be made, in order to effect an international agreement which might eliminate international competition, which is regarded as a menace by hon. Members opposite. I must leave time to the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply, and as I understand the Debate is to be closed by 7.30, I will leave it there.
7.0 p.m.
Speaking with no political partisanship, if hon. Members will accept that, with no political prejudice, I say it appears to me that this constant searching for foreign markets is a mistake. This relentless idea to expand trade thousands of miles away, while forgetting the market here at home, is bound in the end to prove disastrous. In addition, if the Board of Trade is to be a capable administrative body, rendering service to British industry and to the community here at home, it must take a much livelier interest in the international applications and implications arising from British industry. One last word, and that is to direct attention to the very pregnant utterances of the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh in reference to the American octopus. Make no mistake about it. American economic penetration may well bring this
nation down to the position of one of not more than fifth-rate economic importance. We must be exceedingly careful. If we are to waive off that attack, then it is essential that our attention and consideration to these economic problems must be national and international in character.

Mr. DUNCAN: Is this intended to close the discussion?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Whether the discussion ends at 7.30 or not, does not rest with me. If the discussion on the Private Bill lasts till 11 o'clock, it will be impossible to continue the Debate, and I understand there is a considerable possibility that that may happen. I ought to say in explanation of the absence of my right hon. Friend that, while he was speaking this afternoon, a communication arrived as to the serious illness of his father, and he has left for Yorkshire. The Committee will, I am sure, regret the cause of his absence. The hon. Member who has just spoken said the constant searching for foreign markets was a mistake. It is inevitable with us. We have got in the United Kingdom 45,000,000 people, and they cannot live in these islands unless we search for foreign markets. Let me give him one example. The cotton trade exports 80 to 90 per cent. of its output The cotton trade cannot live by any conceivable expansion of the home demand for cotton goods. If, by waving a wand, I could to-morrow double the purchasing power of the British people, I doubt whether they would double their purchases of cotton goods. The cotton industry can only live if they can sell abroad. The implication of the hon. Member's suggestions would be the abandonment of at least two-thirds of the British cotton industry.

Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. Member does not, I am sure, intend to misrepresent me. I did not suggest the abandonment of a foreign market nor that we should not try to expand our trade, but I say that to concentrate on foreign expansion is a mistake. We are forgetting the home market.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sure if the hon. Member would consult the right hon. Gentleman in front of him, he would find
complete disagreement. What is the real cause of the unemployment in Lancashire to-day? It is, broadly speaking, that they are only selling two-thirds of the former quantity of cotton cloth, and that is partly due to increased competitive production in India and to the increased exports from certain European countries. Lancashire can only live by replacing old markets by new ones. If they do not search and find successfully, perhaps 100,000 people now working in the cotton industry will be driven to seek work elsewhere. We have got to seek markets, whether we like it or not, and no alteration of our political or economic system will prevent the population of these islands looking for markets abroad. The hon. Member raised the question of our shipbuilding position In the year ended 31st March, 1014, 50.6 per cent. of the tonnage of ships constructed in the whole world was constructed in British yards. The position is not quite as good as it was, for on 31st March this year it was 48.3 per cent. When one bears in mind everything that has happened since 1914 and the extraordinary construction which took place over a short period in the American yards, it is perfectly amazing, with all those events, that to-day we are able to say that half the ships building in the world are building in British yards. It is something on which the shipbuilders and their workpeople are to be congratulated.
The hon. Baronet the Member for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas) gave us a very deplorable account of the shipping industry. Everyone knows that shipping freights are not too good to-day—that is the price for time charters—and that is a reflection of the fact that employment for shipping is not as good as it might be. Since he spoke, I have taken the trouble to find out the figures for tonnage laid up. In January, the latest figures for this year, there were 359,000 tons of British shipping laid up in our ports, the lowest figure of any year that I have got—and my figures go back to 1924—and it is a third of the figure of January, 1913. So the hon. Baronet, unless a great revolution has taken place since January of this year, was misleading the Committee when he said our ports were, packed with laid-up tonnage.

Mr. KELLY: Why do you take 1913 for comparison?

Mr. WILLAMS: I am sorry. I misread the figures. It is 1923, and not 1913. As compared with 1923, the laid up tonnage is only a third; as compared with January, 1922, it, is a fifth. That means there is a very substantial improvement. I do not mean I am satisfied. I shall not be satisfied until the tonnage laid up is negligible, and new orders are flowing into the shiypards. The last Member who spoke gave us an interesting speech and raised some issues as to the future fundamental form of society, which I would like to debate, but the present moment is hardly the right occasion. He said, on the comparison which the President of the Board of Trade gave, arising out of his introduction to the House of the new index figure of production, that, as between now and 1924, wages have not gone up arid employment has not gone up. It is perfectly true that money wages in most industries are, roughly speaking, the same now as in 1924. In coal mining, they are lower; in engineering, there has been some increase. One can mention increases and decreases, but, on balance, there is no material difference between now and 1924, except in those industries where there is a sliding scale and where wages are related to the cost of living. If you take the other industries, the position is that their real wages are definitely higher than in 1924, because it is common knowledge that the cost of living has fallen. Wages as a whole have not fallen. They have fallen in certain industries, but they have gone up in some. On balance, the purchasing power of the wages paid to the general body of our workers is higher now than in 1924.
It is perfectly true that unemployment continues at a distressingly high level. We all deplore it, and we all seek for a remedy. His Majesty's Government have made proposals which have been discussed in a certain Bill which, I believe, will help. This is not the occasion to discuss that, because we are not discussing legislation. Let us realise the fact that there has been a substantial expansion in employment as between now and 1924. The President of the Board of Trade gave the figures of the number of insured workpeople in employment
to-day as compared with then. What is the expansion? It is substantially over 500,000; 500,000 more people in jobs to-day than this time four years ago. It is satisfactory, though not as satisfactory as I would like, because there are still over 1,000,000 registered insured unemployed.
Then the hon. Member talked about the purchasing power of wages for consumption. When everything is running smoothly in a factory, you produce a certain amount of goods and an equal volume of purchasing power. They get spread cut through the whole volume of goods until they meet. Your production power and your purchasing power are, and must be, identically equal. You may get fluctuations, but throughout the years they must be identical. What you do get it a disturbance in the balance of production. Supposing to-morrow, by a magic wand, I could get everyone double his income, what would happen? You would have complete disorganisation of industry. People would not eat twice as much bread; they might eat less. Many of them might double their consumption of meat. The demand for expensive musical instruments might be quadrupled. The demand for luxuries would expand much more than for necessaries if to-morrow by a magic wand everybody's wages were doubled. It is true that the direction of demand is constantly changing and one of the causes of unemployment in all countries at all times is the change in the direction of fashion—ain I use that word in its widest sense to cover changes in Government policy. Unbalanced production is, in my opinion, one of the outstanding causes of unemployment at all times.
I do not want to pursue this general economic argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] I know it is very interesting, but if hon. Members want some more of it, I can recommend them to a most admirable book. The right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) gave us, as he always does, one of those very admirable, quiet, reasoned speeches on economic problems with which he invariably delights the House. So far as the greater part of his speech is concerned, I have nothing to say, because though he may have emphasised some aspects more than I would have done, I cannot find any general disagreement. He went on to suggest that there was no
fundamental difference between trade between this country and foreign countries, and trade between this country and other parts of the Empire. He is on rather unsound ground there. Trade between this country and the Empire is complementary. Broadly speaking, the rest of the Empire is not to any axtent in competition with us, if we except certain manufacturing establishments in Canada that compete with us. Australia may be producing manufactured products, but she is not shipping them abroad in competition with us, except to New Zealand to a small extent. Broadly speaking, our exports to the Dominions consist of manufactured goods; our imports from the Dominions consist of foodstuffs and raw materials.
When you visualise a very great part of the trade between this country and the Continent, or between this country and the United States, you do not find quite the same thing happening. You find that trade is largely competitive. Therefore I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh should have made that remark, which was not justified by the facts. Then the right hon. Gentleman moved on to the problem of combinations, which was also discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the last speaker. I am not one of those who are terrified by the idea of trusts, nor am I one of those who are constantly seeking to turn everything into a trust. We have to take a balanced view on the subject. So long as the supply of raw materials is open, no trust is going to stop anyone else from starting in the production of any commodity. Many trusts have been formed at one time or another and they have not eliminated competition; other people have come along and started business. Broadly speaking, if a trust is efficient—and by that I mean that it goes on selling at such a reasonable price that we do not object—

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: What is a reasonable price?

Mr. WILLIAMS: A reasonable price is one in which there is no abnormal unit profit. That is one element. If there is some great firm with an enormous combination of capital and an enormous number of people employed, and if in
the annual report of that firm I find that there is a profit of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, I am not astonished or offended. I do not mind if I find that that enormous profit is the result of efficiency in production and the result of a very small unit profit. When we look round at big combinations, we find some that have achieved great success and some which have not achieved the same measure of success. Do we find that the ones with the record of great success are, broadly speaking, profiteering? That is not my experience. So far as investigation into the profits of these successful combines can show, the fact is that their success is due to efficiency of production. Broadly speaking, in such combinations there are very good conditions of employment and a small unit profit. When that is the result of combination I am glad. Suppose that there is another combination conducted inefficiently which seeks to make large unit profits. It does not succeed because competition comes along and knocks it out. I am not in the least afraid of the combine and trust. I do not suggest imitation of the United States method, by starting a great campaign of "trust busting." The campaign did not succeed there. I doubt whether we should be wise to follow the example of Germany by seeking to turn everything into a trust. From time to time there are obvious directions in which some extension of combination is likely to be desirable, and when these extensions are proposed the deliberate policy of my right hon. Friend is to encourage combination where he thinks it is going to be helpful to British trade.
The right hon. Gentleman also made reference to the Balfour Report, and wondered whether enough was being done with its recommendations, and whether the contents of the Report have been placed sufficiently before the public. I am able to report that the sale of the volumes is satisfactory. A large number of people are very interested. The Press has given very great attention to the contents of the volumes. We have not yet reached the final Report, the documents containing the recommendations. That is to be the next volume, and I do not know when it will be out. I understand that the Committee are actively engaged in the preparation of it. I cannot go beyond that statement. We cannot very
well act until we receive the considered recommendations of the Committee, which was appointed by the late Prime Minister—a very competent Committee, if I may say so, which has devoted great attention to the subject. No doubt when we get the final Report, we shall have something which will be of great value to the nation, and which may help us to solve some of the problems that we cannot solve now.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden) raised the question of the Safeguarding procedure. I believe he was not present during the Whitsuntide Adjournment Debate, when the same matter was raised by one of the Members for Leicester and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye), who spoke more particularly about the Hosiery Report. The hon. Member for North Bradford also made some reference to the granite industry. It is my unfortunate trouble, in my present office, on one day to be attacked by hon. Members on the Liberal Benches when the Safeguarding procedure produces a live and kicking infant, as it did last Friday, and on another day to be attacked by hon. Friends on this side when the procedure produces a still-born child. As I have said before in previous Debates, I recognise to the full the severity of the tests contained in the White Paper procedure. They are so terribly severe that I can never understand why Liberal Members do not cheerfully accept the recommendation when one trade manages to get through. Only nine applications have got through out of 49 up to now.
Why does the White Paper impose these severe tests? The people of this country were consulted in 1923 on a broader aspect of policy, and they said "No." In 1924, the present Prime Minister committed himself in pledges that had both a positive and a negative side, and the White Paper was intended to give expression to those pledges. It is the Prime Minister's view that the White Paper does give that expression, and it is also his view, expressed more than once, that the document cannot be altered during the lifetime of the present Parliament. That, briefly, is the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North Bradford. I regret that the conditions in this White Paper are so severe. On the
other hand, when one realises what led to that White Paper, one must agree that it is difficult to escape the view that the Prime Minister could have done no other and keep faith with the nation.
Having made that general statement, I do not think it would be desirable for me to discuss in detail the points raised by the hon. Member for North Bradford on the granite industry or the hosiery industry. But I would correct one misunderstan ding in the mind of the hon. Member, and that is on the question whether an industry is substantial or not. He seemed to think that if, as a result of foreign competition, an industry gradually got smaller and smaller, its substantiality would he measured by its condition at the time that it applied for safeguarding. That would be a nonsensical view to take. Though the Board of Trade does not give instructions to these Committees, which act in a judicial capacity, so far as I know every Safeguarding Committee has always tried to interpret "substantial" by what the condition of the industry was before the competition became what is now regarded as abnormal. Quite clearly you have to consider what was the size of the patient when in a condition of normal health.
I am very sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for East. Aberdeen is not here, because as usual he made an interesting speech, and I wanted to say this, which is not quite so complimentary. He spoke with an assurance, as to the way in which these problems can be solved, which is very much greater than that of people who have had a lot more experience than he has had. I do not say that with any intention of being unkind. If it were as easy as be suggests to solve al these problems, we should have been out of our difficulties long ago. My hon. Friend emphasised the importance if having good statistics. He was full of oraise, for the Americans and above all he praised Mr. Hoover. I could not help thinking that Mr. Hoover was like a certain domestic article with which we are a all familiar, but running in reverse, because he seemed to blow out statistics with the same facility as the Hoover pick up dust.
With all respect in the world to Mr. Hoover, who some day may occupy an even more exalted position, let us be fair to our own statistical departments.
They are not so bad. They are fairly prompt in publishing their information. Some reference has been made to the extent of unemployment in the United States. No one has the faintest idea how many people there are unemployed in America, because there are no statistics kept concerning them. On the other hand we do know here, with a considerable measure of accuracy, the numbers of our unemployed. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) may disagree with me as to whether the live register represents all the unemployed of this country, but he and I do not argue as to whether the unemployed are 1,100,000 or double that number. In America, on the, other hand, some say there are 2,000,000 unemployed and others that there are 4,000,000. Anyone who wants information as to our foreign trade, has only to go to the Department presided over by the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) and he will receive information with an efficiency and promptitude as great as that afforded by any Government in the world. I do not want hon. Members to run away with the idea that our statistics are badly compiled or inaccurate. Anyone who reads any of the volumes of the Balfour Report with their great mass of very carefully compiled statistics, the bulk of them statistics produced regularly and there brought together in one volume, must be impressed with the completeness of the information supplied.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
In listening to the Parliamentary Secretary one would imagine that things are very bright and rosy in the trade and industry of the country, but when we look more closely into the details, we find that there is a great deal more to be done in order to bring industry into a reasonable condition. I am not going to follow the Parliamentary Secretary further in regard to statistics. I know that the statistics in some of the Departments are of a good order, but there could be a considerable improvement in his own Department as well as in that of the hon. Gentleman representing the Department of Overseas Trade. Let me refer to some of the industries. We were told that there had been an improvement in engineering. Under engineering we
were given many sections, and it was not possible for the President of the Board of Trade to separate those sections in a way that would make them understandable. Could the Parliamentary Secretary manage to separate not only the motorcar section of the industry, but also the marine engine section and the section with which he is well acquainted, the machine tool section, from the textile machinery? I want that separation in order to show that even the Government has some responsibility for the absence of prosperity in some of the sections.

It being Half-pest Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

ACCRINGTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order).

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 180.—(Regulation of house to house collections, etc.)

Captain FRASER: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I think a large majority of the House will desire to give the most careful and sympathetic consideration to a plea made on behalf of a considerable number of well-known long-established and, I think I may say, highly regarded charities. They are, among others the British Legion, St. Dunstans, the Lifeboat Institution, the Society for the. Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Dr. Barnardo's Homes, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Church Army and the Salvation Army. Some of us, having heard the representations of those societies, are led to believe that there is much in their case and that the House would wish to hear it before coming to a decision on Clause 180 of this Bill. I am sure it is the wish of the House to avoid anything in this Debate more controversial than is necessary or anything outside the matter which we have in hand, but I must assume—and I hope there will be a large measure of support for the assumption—that these charities have done and are doing great
work in the alleviation of suffering and in pioneering new methods of relieving suffering and that they should be encouraged.
Consequently, I feel that Parliament ought to hesitate before taking any step which is likely to hinder them in their work and make their operations more difficult. I do not mean that Parliament should do nothing in the matter of controlling charities. On the contrary our view, and that of the charities themselves, is that there are possible abuses and that in the country, at the present time, the good name of charity and the good work of many splendid organisations is being prejudiced by the bad work and the selfish improper activities of a certain small number of people. We feel strongly that Parliament should quickly do something, not merely in the interests of the community, but in the interests of the organisations themselves and the interests of the beneficiaries of those organisations. Certain charities, two of which are among those for whom we are speaking, are already registered under an Act of this House. All war charities and blind charities are registered and are thereby controlled, in a measure, in their collections and administration by the local authorities in the areas in which their headquarters are situated. Having been associated with a great war charity for some 10 years, I have had exceptional opportunities of observing how registration operates and I do not hesitate to say that it is advantageous to the charities, to the beneficiaries and to the public. It is generally admitted that the best Government in the world is the better for criticism and observation and it is certainly the case that even the best charity in the world will have cleaner administration and better methods, if an unbiased and competent body, outside of itself, watches it, scrutinises its accounts and criticises it. I do not hesitate to say that where there is a competent body to exercise that function, registration is an advantage.
The present Home Secretary set up a committee of inquiry to advise him whether or not registration should be extended to all charities or what measure of public control should be placed upon the charities, if any, and in what form. They reported against
registration on the ground that very few local authorities in the country had, in fact, carried out the registration of war and blind charities at all effectively. They paid a high tribute to the London County Council, and to the corporations of a f3w of the great cities, but, in general, they said that they hesitated to place upon those authorities who had done the smaller job so ill, the responsibility 3f registering some 80,000 or 100,000 charities. I regret that finding. I wish it were possible to recommend that all charities should be registered, and I still cling to the hope that the additional powers and status which may be conferred upon local authorities by the Government's action in another connection, may yet make them capable of carrying out that duty in the near future. The Departmental Committee to which I have referred recommended an alternative method of controlling charities Their idea was to make the local authorities representing authorities and not registration authorities—to give then the power, and indeed the duty, of representing to some central authority any case in which there was prima facie evidence of fraud or maladministration and the police were to share with the local authorities the duty of making representations. The idea was that the Charity Commissioners should be the central authority and should have power to inquire fully into any case, and, if necessary, to shut down the so-called charity and take penal measures, or, if that was riot thought desirable, to remodel it and make a scheme for its continued administration. I am to say for the charities whose views we have ascertained, that they are cordially in favour of some method of national control which would sort out the good from the bad charities.
Having regard to that fact it may be asked "Why are you opposing Clause 180? Doe it not seek what you seek and is not the only difference that it is a measure operating in one area, rather than a national measure operating over the whole country?" There is something in that argument, but I want to examine rather closely what this Clause provides, and what its effect may be. It will be remembered that under the Police, Factories etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916 there was a Clause
very similar in construction to that which is now under consideration. If hon. Members turn to Clause 180 they will see that it seeks to give power to the Accrington Corporation to licence those persons who desire to make house-to-house or door-to-door collections, and it goes on to say that the Watch Committee may refuse a licence if it is not satisfied as to the bonâ fide nature of the charity. I have said that the wording of the Clause is similar to the clause relating to street collections in a previous Act, and, whatever may be the protestations of the promoters of the Bill, they will be the first to admit that we are bound to examine what happened in relation to street collections in considering what may happen under this Clause.
It was said with regard to the control of street collections "There is no desire to hamper great national charities in any way. We do not want to discriminate as between one national charity and another, or as between a national charity and a local charity, but what we want to do is to sort out the good from the bad." In fact, what happened was that many reputable and highly regarded national charities found it difficult to secure freedom to continue street collections in areas in which, possibly, they had held such collections for a quarter of a century. There is a conflict of evidence as to precisely what Accrington means by this Clause. A paper circulated by the promoters makes no reference to any desire on the part of Accrington to discriminate, either between one national charity and another, or between national charities on the one hand and local charities on the other. If hon. Members read only that paper they would be entitled to take the view that all that Accrington wanted to do was to sort out the good from the bad. But is that all? The chief constable in his evidence before the Local Legislation Committee admitted that he desired to give preference to local charities. I am not pretending to quote his words, but he said that it was his wish to exclude from collections in the borough certain national charities, not on the ground that they were bad or that he questioned their bonâ
fide character, but simply on the very good homely ground that charity begins at home.
There is much to be said for any saying which has survived for generations and even for centuries. There is probably a great deal of truth in it, but if charity is to begin at home in every borough in England, national charities will be unable to carry on their work. It is a question for this House as to whether or not the houses of Accrington are not also the houses of England. I would submit that it would be well to examine this Clause from two points of view. It is to be noticed that the Corporation of Accrington may refuse a licence if it doubts the bona fides of the applicants, but it does not say that they may not refuse the licence on any other ground, and there is, therefore, no security that other grounds will not be taken. The Chief Constable of Accrington might not like a particular charity; he might not like some of its activities, or he might think it has got too much money. He is entitled to his opinion, but I would submit that he is not competent to judge in those matters. What can he or the watch committee know about the affairs of, shall we say, the British Legion or the Salvation Army, whose headquarters are in London?
I submit not only that the local authority is not competent to judge this matter, but that it is riot a fair jury, for the governors of local charities probably live in Accrington and are very likely members of the local authority, and possibly of the watch committee, whereas the governors of our national charities are probably more often in London; and if a case is brought before the watch committee to determine whether or not a national charity is working in good faith, or should be preferred, or whether or not some other local charity should be preferred, is not the watch committee both prosecution and judge in the same case? Under the Section in the Police Act of 1916 there is no appeal against the decision of a watch committee, and no appeal is suggested in connection with this Clause. I submit to the House that this is the thin end of the wedge, which will gradually be driven home until every local authority in the country has this power, until, in fact, this power becomes national. That will
probably be one of the arguments of the promoters of the Bill, but it will be formulated and it will become national out of this small amount of consideration that has been given to this vast subject by a group of persons interested in a particular locality, and after this House has had but little opportunity of discussing the matter on a national basis.
The Committee to which I have referred said that this particular method of collecting, more than any other, should he dealt with on a uniform basis and nationally. We have learned from the Home Secretary, in answer to questions in the past few weeks, that he has a Bill in preparation to carry out the recommendations of his Committee. I hope that he or his representative to-night may confirm that and tell us that they will get on with that work, and may perhaps indicate how soon they can introduce it. It may well be pleaded that in the meantime we should relieve Accrington of its difficulties, but I would ask if Accrington is more important than any other borough in England, and if there is any reason why a precedent, and possibly a bad and ill-considered one, should be created in this case. I say "possibly," because I am not certain that it is bad; it may be good, but I plead that enough consideration has not been given to it.
I ask the House to take the view that these great national charities occupy a useful place in society by filling up the gaps that are left in State and municipal assistance. I submit that they always will fill such a place, for in the best regulated State or municipality there would still be gaps, anomalies, and hard cases; that these associations, which have broken new ground and pioneered the fields of social service, should be allowed to go on with their work, and that Parliament should not, in any way hamper them in their operations until it has had an adequate opportunity of considering the preparation of some proper national scheme, based upon a wider view of this subject than perhaps those who have interested themselves in it to-night have up to the present taken. I hope the promoters of the Bill will take the view that by raising this matter they have rendered a useful service and have perhaps
stimulated the Minister concerned to take more swift action than he might otherwise have taken, and that under these circumstances they may think that the rational course and, if I may submit it to them, the wiser course lies in the direction of withdrawing this Clause.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
The power sought by the Accrington Corporation is a power that has never been granted by Statute to any other corporation in this country, and they seek to set up a precedent so far as this power is concerned. It does not necessarily follow that the powers sought are bad, but if they seek to create a precedent in this way, the House must be very careful in granting this power, and we are entitled, when a precedent is sought, more carefully to examine the matter than we would he in the case of an ordinary power sought by a corporation in connection with their ordinary work. Clause 180 is not really the original Clause sought by the Accrington Corporation. In opposing what was the original Clause, the Salvation Army gave some goods reasons why that Clause, as then drafted, ought not to be proceeded with. As a result of that representation, we have now got the amended Clause before us, and the same organisation that opposed the original Clause believes f rat this one requires the most careful consideration.
I want now to deal with powers that have been given to corporations previously. Under the Police, Factories, Etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1916, local authorities were given power merely to give permits or, in other words, to discriminate as between those who should and should not have the right to take up street collections. The reason why I am referring to these powers is that that power to discriminate, given to local authorities has been turned into a power to prohibit so far as many of these authorities are concerned. I have here a list of many of the larger cities in England which have deliberately prohibited many of our national charities from taking up street collections in their respective areas, and I want this House to note that under the Clause which we are asked to pass it will be left to the Accrington Corpora-
tion to decide what is or is not a national charity. The Accrington Corporation accept the view that the Salvation Army is a local charity, but some of these other corporations that have exercised their powers of discrimination in connection with street collections have considered that the Salvation Army is a national charity.
Clause 180 does not define what is or is not a local charity, it does not define what is or is not a national charity, and it does not even define what a charity is. There are many organisations besides the Salvation Army, such as churches, that have their local charity days, and there is nothing in this Clause defining what is a charity or what is a religious organisation. Therefore, I submit that the powers sought would be exercised arbitrarily, it might not be by Accrington at the moment, but if we allow this Clause to go through, I think it will follow, from the communications that some of us have received, that many of the other corporations in this country will apply for exactly the same powers. If local authorities do, in fact, disdiscriminate in connection with street collections, it is reasonable to suppose that they will do exactly the same if these powers are given in connection with house-to-house collections, and then it. will follow that if these various organisations want to appeal to the charitable public, they will be compelled to do so by means of circulars through the Post Office, and so on. This, of itself, will necessarily increase the overhead charges in connection with the collections for charitable purposes, and I maintain that it is not right for local or national charities to be viewed, either by the Accrington Town Council or by any other town council, as pests, or mild assaults, or public nuisances. If the public are satisfied with the case presented, we hope they will help, and if not, they have a right to refuse help to any of these charities that appeal to them.
8.0 p.m.
When the case was first submitted to a Private Legislation Committee it was for the purpose of dealing with fraudulent charities, but, as has been pointed out, this Clause does not discriminate between what might be a fraudulent charity and what is recognised as a national institution, such as the Salva-
tion Army, the National Lifeboat Institution, Dr. Barnardo's Homes, and the many other charities which we recognise as really national institutions doing very good national work. This Clause would give full powers to the Accrington Corporation, with no rights of appeal so far as any of these charities are concerned, and neither the Salvation Army, Dr. Barnardo's Homes, the National Lifeboat Institution, nor any other of these organisations desire in any shape or form to defend what would be admitted by some people or claimed by some corporations as fraudulent charities. They have said in the memorandum that has been sent out that they are quite prepared to accept national regulations, in accordance with the evidence that was submitted before the Departmental Committee which inquired into the whole question of national charities. The Home Office reported against the power which is sought by the Accrington Corporation, and in summing up their objections to the original Clause, this is what the representative of the Home Office stated:
This proposal would place the local authority in a position of discriminating between different charitable or other objects and would imply a degree of control over and interference with the collection of money for bona fide charities by their supporters, which appear to the Secretary of State to he open to strong objection. He submits that this is not the kind of function which can properly be entrusted to a local authority, and that if sanctioned it would expose many innocent workers in the interests of various charities to interference with their work and possible proceedings in the Courts.
The Clause does not ask or demand that organisations shall apply for permits, but it gives power to individuals who are taking part in charitable collections to apply to the Watch Committee for an individual permit. If that power were given to Accrington, and if I were in Accrington, and someone down and out asked me to make an appeal to the general public on their behalf, and I were prepared to go, not necessarily from door to door, but to sonic doors, I would be liable under this Clause. Every individual will be entitled to apply to the Watch Committee, or the Chief Constable who will represent the committee, for individual permits. If the miners were locked out, and I decided to make
a house-to-house appeal for clothing for miners' children, I should be liable if I had no permit, to the penalties contained in the Bill. The Clause not only deals with appeals for finance, but it will prohibit a great organisation like the Salvation Army, for instance, from actually selling the articles that had been actually manufactured in the homes run by them. Surely this House will not give that power to anybody. So far as the Salvation Army is concerned, I have told the House before that I make no apology for pleading on their behalf. The balance-sheet for 1927 of the Salvation Army Women's Social Work alone shows an income of £31,725 13s. 10d. drawn from selling articles which have been manufactured in the homes run by the Salvation Army; if someone, exercising the power proposed to be given to the Accrington Corporation, were to refuse the right of the Salvation Army officials, officers and workers to sell these goods, many homes which are run by that organisation would have to be closed, because they are partly kept going on the proceeds of the sale of articles manufactured by the inmates of the homes.
A Clause seeking to give such powers as Clause 180 is really something for national effort. It ought to be brought in by the Home Secretary in a Measure dealing with the matter from a national point of view. We ought not to deal with legislation of this kind piecemeal by giving one corporation a power such as this. I trust that, in the interests of the charities to which I have referred, we shall reject this Clause. There is no desire on the part of anyone associated with the Opposition to defend fraudulent collecting agencies, but in the approach to the charitable public by such great national charitable organisations as the Salvation Army, Dr. Barnardo's Homes, the British Legion, the various organisations and institutions for the blind, and the other organisations which are appealing against this Clause being passed, it ought not to be within the power of any authority to prohibit their appeal to the public.
We all know of the splendid work done by the British Legion, the Church Army, Dr. Barnardo's Homes, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, St. Dunstan's and the Salvation Army. So
far as the Salvation Army is concerned, most hon. Members know what splendid work they have done. While all will not agree with what they do or have done, the House will unanimously agree that they have never made a man poorer or a home poorer, they have never made a man or a woman worse, or a child unhappy, but, by splendid social work and Christian effort, they have been the instrument of turning many an unhappy borne into a centre of happiness and joy. They have also been able to pick up the tattered threads of many a broken life, and to weave it into a life of Christian devotion and charity. They have been able to pluck hundreds of brands from the burring, and to turn them into beacons of good citizenship to all around. Because of these arguments which I submit against the Clause, and on behalf of these national charities, I trust to the House to give an overwhelming vote against a Clause which seeks to give these powers.

Sir THOMAS ROBINSON: I wish to submit a short statement setting out the reasons why Clause. 180 found its way into the Bill. Before giving that statement, I should like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras North (Captain Fraser) that in Committee upstairs we had a high regard for our national charities, and we had no intention of hindering their freedom. In this Clause we are seeking, as we believe, to protect these charities from fraudulent collectors who have used many charities as a means of obtaining money by false pretences. In Manchester a man went round for months single-handed from house to house collecting money on behalf of certain charities which he specified. During six months he specified three different eharities, and at the beginning of the seventh month he was apprehended. He had collected £227, which he had appropriated to his own use, and to-day he is in gaol. Such people are about, and we are seeking by this Clause, so far as Accrington is concerned, to protect tit; people of that borough from these fraudulent people.
The evidence submitted by the Accrington Corporation in support of this Clause was very carefully considered, and we reached the unanimous conclusion, after very careful consideration, to insert, the Clause in the Bill. In the evidence sub-
mitted by the Accrington Corporation, they gave specific examples of fraudulent collections in the borough, the proceeds of which benefited almost entirely the promoters of the so-called charities and the professional collectors employed by them. They applied for these powers on the ground of the prevention of fraud and the prevention of a nuisance to the public. They believe that by exercising these powers they will be able to clear the borough of undesirable collectors. The borough of Accrington is efficiently managed, and we believed, as a. Committee, that they are fit to administer the regulations, which are proposed by this Clause, with discretion and justice to all parties. The Council is the police authority under an Act of 1916, and I am not aware that any charge can be made against the Accrington Corporation that they have, since the 1916 Act, done anything detrimental to charities as regards street collection. I have made inquiries, and I can find no evidence to justify any statement that the Corporation have not administered that Act justly and fairly to all parties concerned. With this evidence before us, we felt that we could not doubt the sincerity of the Accrington Corporation, and should not be justified in doing so. So the Committee made up its mind that it might fairly trust the Accrington Corporation to administer Clause 180.
Collections from house-to-house are subject to greater abuse than street collections, and there is greater need for regulating house-to-house collecting than there is street collecting. In regard to the Regulations, the Committee upstairs relied to a large extent on the regulations which we have entrusted, in the Proviso on Page 108, to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary will have power under the Regulations to impose what conditions he may think necessary for the protection of these charities in order to secure justice for them, and the Committee upstairs rely on the regulations which the Home Secretary has power to make to prevent the Borough of Accrington or even the charities themselves from doing anything detrimental.
The time has come when Parliament, either by an Act of this kind or an Act dealing with the whole country, should make an effort to stamp out fraudulent
practices. It was the anxiety of the Committee upstairs to get this done that induced us to put in this Clause. It will not be news to Members of the House that the Local Legislation Committee has for the last generation—at least during my period of service, which covers three Parliaments—been a pioneer in local legislation for the health and comfort of the people. To satisfy local conditions we have put into local Bills many Clauses outside the general law, and they have proved so successful that Parliament has been following on the lines of the Local Legislation Committee and introducing general Bills embodying Clauses on the lines of those we have granted to meet the special conditions in local areas. In the last Public Health Act almost every Clause was on the lines of Clauses which had already been granted in local Bins. Those Clauses, which were exceptional at the time, proved so successful that Parliament was prepared to embody them in a general Act for the good of the health of the country as a whole. Therefore, we have been to a certain extent pioneers in local legislation, and to-night it appears to me that we are pioneers in this matter.
I do not know how soon there will be a general Bill. I wish it could be tomorrow. We desire it and wish it, and, so far as I am concerned, if I were satisfied that within a reasonable time the Home Office would deal with this matter, I should not be prepared to press this Clause very far to-night. The Committee upstairs feel very keenly that the Home Office has an obligation not only to the public, but to the great charities which have done such excellent work in the country, to deliver them from these fraudulent people who go about collecting money which could be better spent in other directions. If the House is of opinion that Clause 180 is too previous, and we could get some undertaking from the Front Bench that the matter would be dealt with, I, as Chairman of the Committee, would be prepared to set this Clause aside for the time being; but my colleagues feel so very keenly on this matter that unless we do get some undertaking from the Front Bench we shall have to press this Clause to a Division.

Major COHEN: The hon. Member for Stretford (Sir T. Robinson) has laid great
stress upon the number of fraudulent collectors going about the country, and mentioned one in his own district who had been collecting for some three months. I am wondering why this particular power should be given to the Accrington Council if he wants to prevent a man going about in his own district? I think it would be very much better to drop this Clause, and to press the Government to bring in some measure of national control to apply to all charities which are not now under the War Charities Acts, putting them under similar regulations. I think I am right in saying that a charity registered under the War Charities Act is not allowed to collect without permission from the headquarters of that charity. As Treasurer of the British Legion, I know that we have no collector going about the country who does not carry a card bearing the signature of our organising secretary. There are, I agree, a large number of people, or a certain number of people, going about collecting money to which they are not entitled, and I realise also that it is very difficult for a householder to differentiate between the black sheep and the white sheep, and that something must be done for his protection, but I do not think the course proposed to-night is the right course to take.
I speak here for the British Legion, and the British Legion up to now have had no complaint to make whatsoever. I do not think we have ever been refused permission to hold a flag day in any city or village in the country, but I can foresee a time when that interest which is now taken in ex-service men may die out, and what I am frightened of is that it will die Out before the distress which exists among the men has been alleviated. I can foresee a time coming along when there may possibly be a new local Pharoah which knew not the national Joseph, and if, as we have to appeal to local authorities to hold flag days, we then have to appeal to have a door-to-door collection, it is quite possible that both those requests will be refused; and then, indeed, I do not know what is going to happen. I should prefer to appeal to some national committee, to the Home Office, who are in a position to take a much broader view than local committees, because a local committee must in a general way be more interested in their
local charities than in national charities. It is for that reason that I would oppose this Clause and rather press the Government to bring in national legislation.

Mr. T. SHAW: I think the hon. Member for Stretford (Sir T. Robinson) impressed every Member of the House not only by his evident earnestness, but by the record of the work his Committee have done, and I think no one who, like myself, is against this Clause on its merits, will refuse to give the Committee over which he presides so ably full measure of praise for the work done. When I first read this Clause I saw no objection in it; it was only on further consideration that I saw a possibility of greater harm than good arising from it. I hope the hon. Member will accept my assurance, which I think could be duplicated by the assurance of other hon. Members, that it is neither out of disrespect for the Committee nor from a misunderstanding of their aim, that we are opposing this Clause; it is because a light has struck us, and we see the possibility of greater harm than good being done. I know the town of Accrington very intimately, and I know it is, so to speak, a member of a family of manufacturing towns. On behalf of Accrington, I can say that it is one of the cleanest and best-managed towns in the county of Lancashire. Consequently, it is certainly not out of disrespect to the corporation of Accrington that I am opposing this Clause.
I believe the Accrington Corporation by this Clause intended to do what it thought was best for the inhabitants of Accrington in order to put an end to what they consider to he a pest and a nuisance. The question we have to consider is whether tins particular Clause is of such a character as to go much further than the evident intention of the Corporation. T re Clause seems to me to contain a principle which in itself can be productive of much annoyance and harm. If that be the case, then I suggest that the House and the Corporation of Accrington should allow the Clause to be deleted from the Bill, and leave the Government to find a method of dealing with this nuisance in a national way and not by a piecemeal method which may hit national interests by making it of local application when the same object might be achieved without injuring any national organisation whatever.
I have no official connection with any of the charities which have been mentioned. I have not been briefed by any of them, but, apart from the charity, let me put on record my everyday experience in Lancashire towns, including Accrington. The Lancashire cotton trade is very highly concentrated in certain towns, and the weaving trade has by far the heaviest employment. Frequently, the Trade Union organisations in the cotton trade make collections for various purposes. The collectors connected with the Weavers' Union often go from house to house collecting subscriptions from the members of the union. Let me give a typical case. Not long ago, the miners of South Wales sent out an appeal for assistance in the shape of clothing, boots, and shoes for men, women, and children. The collectors of these various unions in Accrington might desire to make a special journey round the town to help appeals of that kind. Under Clause 180 of this Bill, every one of those collectors would have to get a special permit. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] If that be so, then there is a difference of opinion as to what the Clause means, and that is an additional reason why it ought to be struck out of the Bill. On my reading of the Clause, everyone of the collectors I have alluded to would have to get a separate individual permit, probably from the Chief Constable, in order to take part in the work of collecting. When a person had obtained such a permit to go round collecting, apparently it would last for 12 months.
I suggest that we should not run the risk of a danger of this kind when political feelings are running high. Even watch committees and chief constables sometimes have political prejudices, and there are such things as religious prejudices. It would be very injudicious to leave a question like this for the decision of any local authority under the stress of great excitement. Nothing worse could happen in any locality than that there should be a feeling that any charity in the locality, whether it is organised by the Conservative, Liberal or Labour organisations, should have a grievance and should have a feeling that it has been unfairly dealt with. This Clause will produce that danger, and quite apart from the arguments put forward in favour
of the Clause there are arguments on the other side as to the way the Clause is drawn, and what it really means. Above and beyond all that, there is the danger that purely local circumstances and decisions may be used to decide a principle that really is a national one, and for these reasons I hope the Clause will be rejected.
It may be that there are a few people in Accrington who will be exposed to the danger of a nuisance to which they ought not to be subjected, but by passing this Clause you may get rid of a minor nuisance and introduce in its place a much bigger nuisance. I hope that the Home Office, through the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary, will be able to tell us definitely that the Government intend to deal with this question of bogus collections in a national way. I think the Chairman of the Committee upstairs was rather illogical in winding up his speech. He said that there is no difficulty in the Clause because it will be perfectly easy for the Home Secretary to make Regulations. May I point out that the Clause says nothing about the Home Office making Regulations, and they are to be made by the local authority. It has been said that if the Accrington Corporation do not get this power they will be seriously inconvenienced in the meantime. Do hon. Members consider that the Home Office is so capable that it eon do these things in the twinkling of an eye. It is evident that it would take the Government a long time to do what has been asked for. If it is possible for the Home Office to deal with this matter quickly and effectively, then it should be possible for them to deal with the subject on national lines. This Clause hides in itself a danger of this kind and that is why I ask the House to reject it. I should be the last person to interfere with local authorities or town councils. I have fought all my life for the extension of the powers of municipalities, but there are municipal things and national things, and this is a national matter in which the policy should be laid down by the Legislature and not by the local authorities.

Mr. WADDINGTON: In listening to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment, I felt that they were directed not so much to the particular Clause which we are discussing as to the
merits of the different national charity organisations. Those who are in favour of this Clause have, however, just as much sympathy with those organisations, and are as anxious to see them succeed, as are the hon. Members who moved and seconded the rejection of the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) has brought the subject nearer to the question raised by the Clause, namely, whether administration by a locality or administration by the Home Office is the right method of procedure in this connection. We have had experience of local administration in regard to street collections from 1916, when that power was given by the State to the localities. Is it suggested that there has been an abuse of that power by the local authorities?

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is the hon. Member aware that, in the administration of the Street Collections Act, the Borough of Accrington has itself refused a national charity, namely, Dr. Barnardo's homes, the right to make a collection in the streets of Accrington?

Mr. WADDINGTON: The point to which I was coming was that, in the few cases throughout the country in which local authorities have refused to allow these collections, what has to be considered is not whether they refused because of discrimination, but whether they refused because there were local circumstances which prevented the collection from being taken on that particular day. The case was quoted of the Salvation Army's application, which was refused by different authorities. Before the Committee, Commissioner Lawrie, who gave evidence, said that they never inquired as to the reason why their application had been refused. They put in an application in nine places and received refusals, but they did not follow up the question whether the refusal was on purely temporary local grounds, or whether it was on a question of principle in regard to the Salvation Army. I am quite sure that, in the case of the Borough of Rochdale, which refused the application of the Salvation Army, that refusal was not because they had anything against the Salvation Army, but because it would clash with some particular local object on the same day. Surely, that is not an unreasonable thing for a local authority to do, and it is not un-
reasonable that they should have that power.
This Clause proposes to give to the Accrington Corporation with respect to house-to-house collections exactly the same power which they have with respect to the regulation of street collections. Is it to be suggested that the House of Commons desires that the Act of 1916 should be repealed, that the power which is now vested in local authorities should be taken from them and put under national control? If not, what is going to be the result of the suggested legislation by the Home Office? Is it intended that for one purpose the Home Office shall have the right to prohibit a collection in a town, and that for the same purpose the right shall be given to the local authority to allow the collection in another form? If it be right for the local authorities to have the power of selection now, it surely should be right to extend the power to them as regards house-to-house collections.
Are we not, in all our legislation, disposed to extend the powers of local authorities, owing to the confidence that we have n them because of their local knowledge. Are we not disposed to extend rather than restrict their powers? Recently in this House we had the Dog Racing Bill before us. That, surely, was a case in which national legislation might have been demanded, but the House said that it would legislate giving power to every local authority, instead of establishing a national system under which everyone would have to go to a Department of State in order to get a licence to have a dog-racing track. If the proposed Measure which the Home Office have in front of them were to be passed, it would be necessary to give the local authorities power to administer it under Regulations approved by the Home Office. What is t le difference between the attitude of the Accrington Corporation and the attitude which this House would ultimately have to adopt? The Accrington Corporation begin this procedure, and you legislate upwards for the Accrington Corporation, and ultimately for the rest of the country, under Regulations which have been approved by the Home Office. It is not suggested that these Regulations are to be solely under the control of Accrington; they have to be submitted by Accrington to the Home
Office, and, until the Home Office has given its approval, until the Regulations are model Regulations which the Home Office is satisfied will apply, not only to Accrington, but to any other authority which may obtain similar powers, the Home Office will undoubtedly refuse to sanction them.
There have been during the last quarter of a century many cases in which local authorities, in advance of the desire and wish of Parliament, have obtained special Clauses, which have come to be known as model Clauses, in their local Acts of Parliament, and, when those model Clauses have been adopted and carried out in the private Acts of many local authorities, they have ultimately come to be the general law of the land, and, consequently, have superseded, all the local Acts. This is what will happen in the present case. When it is proved by the experience of Accrington that the Clause is a good one, that the power of limitation is good, and that it has been wisely used, other authorities will get the same power, and ultimately the Home Office will have to introduce general legislation. I submit that this House will be doing the right thing if, instead of rejecting this Clause because it is novel, it considers the Clause on its merits, as simply bringing house-to-house collections into line with flag days and street collections, and making the legislation uniform so far as this particular town is concerned. There is no reason why it should not apply to all other towns that ask for it. If the House will do that, I think it will be taking a step in the right direction for the advantage of local government and for doing away with many of these cases of fraudulent collections which have occurred in various towns.

Mrs. PHILIPSON: I do not wish to repeat all the arguments that have been so well expressed against this Clause, but I was one of the members of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Home Office to investigate this question, and I am convinced, after hearing and weighing all that evidence, that this matter is so serious that it should be dealt with nationally, and not left to the discretion of any one local authority. I merely wish to express that point of view and I feel that in doing so I am express-
ing the wish of the whole Committee that this matter should be dealt with from a national point of view, the Committee having thoroughly investigated all the pros and cons and all the dangers that would arise if it were left to the discretion of the local authority.

Mr. RADFORD: I hope the House will not agree to the deletion of this Clause. I have listened to all the speeches that have been made in favour of its deletion and the arguments put forward appear to be based on two grounds, firstly, that the subject is one that should be dealt with nationally, and, secondly, that it is an attack, as it were, on charitable organisations. As far as the desirability of its being done nationally is concerned I entirely agree, but in that case would it not simply be that national legislation would be enacted which each local authority would administer in its own area, and the Accrington Corporation would have the power given it to administer in its own area that part of what was a national Act of Parliament. I really cannot understand the fears of charitable organisations or of hon. Members who have spoken on their behalf. One would think the Accrington Corporation were going definitely to refuse to allow house-to-house collections, whereas all they are asking is that their watch committee may make regulations with regard to the conditions under which collections shall be made, and one of the regulations may require any person to obtain a permit before making such collections. It is only permissive. The most they can do is that they may require people to get permits. Following that it says a permit may be refused in any case in which the watch committee has reasonable ground for supposing the collection is not made for a bona fide charitable purpose. The Clause even lays down the only condition under which it may be refused. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate it may be refused under those conditions. We have no reason to think they will arbitrarily try to use this power, if we give it them, to limit the activities of charitable bodies.
I know of my own experience the incalculable harm that is being done to charitable organisations by these bogus collectors. For over 20 years I have been hon. secretary of the Manchester
and Salford Wood Street Children's Mission, and only a few months ago I know how perturbed we were when we found there was a woman going round the Blackpool area, where we have a seaside camp, armed with one of our annual reports and a home-made receipt book, which she could buy for a shilling at any stationers. She had gone round from house-to-house stating that she was collecting money for the mission. She only did it for a few days. It only came to our ears through some casual visitor at our camp, who said a woman had called at her house collecting and she thought she would like to see the camp. We had no house-to-house collector, and our superintendent made inquiries and found the woman was a swindler imposing on the charitable public. We know what effect it has on the charitable public when they find that people who have been collecting from them are swindlers. It spreads a feeling of suspicion. They do not know how much of the money finds its way to the quarter they intend it to go to. I am as interested as anybody in the House in some of the very charities that are appealing so strongly against the Clause. For the local authorities to have control of house-to-house collections it is more important in the interest of the charities themselves that they should have their present unfettered powers to go from house to house and that swindlers should have similar unfettered power to go round at the same time.

Mr. MORRIS: The case for this Clause is really a case for what I should like to describe as grandmotherly legislation. It is really to protect householders from fraud. The provisions of the Criminal Law are quite powerful enough. I very much regret to see the tendency of modern legislation to protect grown-up people who can look after their affairs without police protection or the assistance of the Watch Committee. There is no necessity why a householder should not examine a person who comes to his door and find out whether he is a bona, fide collector or not. There is no way in which you can protect against fraud except by prosecution and the ordinary procedure of the criminal law. The Clause in this Bill is even worse than a national Bill. Why should you multiply new offences rather than leave the matter to the criminal law? Everyone knows
what fraud is and that a man who commits it may be sentenced to imprisonment. Why give this power to a Watch Committee? Why create a number of new offences merely to protect people who will not take the trouble to protect themselves?

Mr. RADFORD: Take the case. I mentioned of the woman going round collecting. Suppose a police officer went to her and said, "Show me your proof that you are collecting for the Wood Street Mission," and she said, "I have no proof. When I have finished collecting I shall hand the money over." How could you bring fraud home against her?

Mr. MORRIS: In the first place, are you going to transfer the right to the police to make inquiries in every single case where a person makes a house-to-house collection? The Clause would give this power in Accrington. The offence the hon. Member refers to took place at Blackpool. How would this Clause give protection? Why transfer to the police the power of inquisition? There can be no justification for the creation of these new offences. Let the law operate in its own general way. There can be no justification for allowing the passing of a Bill of this kind conferring powers neon one local authority.

Mr. PALIN: I support the Bill. If it is necessary to regulate street collections, it is more necessary in my judgment to regulate the house-to-house appeal. The objections raised on behalf of these national charities are wholly imaginery, and I am convinced that neither the Accrington Corporation nor the Local Legislation Committee, of which I am a member, would be guilty in thought or deed of the charges sought to be made against them by the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood). We consider it necessary to prohibit young girls from standing in streets on a flag day—a very desirable regulation, grandmotherly or otherwise. We prohibit children under a certain age from taking part, and yet we cons1 antsy meet with young children begging from door to door on behalf of some charity without any restrictions whatever. I feel that the more difficult you make it for the fraudulent collector to impose upon the general public, the more su9port the genuine charity will receive. If the Home Office will give
an undertaking that they will attend to the matter, I have no objection at all, but Government Departments have been promising legislation to meet many such evils as we are discussing. Local legislation committees propose Bill after Bill, but the Government say, "We are considering general legislation to deal with the subject."
As a matter of fact, the local authorities, by promoting Clauses of this description, have secured powers which have been a guide to the Department. Some of the most valuable provisions which are now included in health legislation, for instance, have been acquired through the experiment of granting powers to one local authority and judging by results as to whether it was wise to extend those powers or not. Therefore, I trust that it may be possible for the House to allow Accrington to take this power. If the Home Secretary thinks that as a result of the experience he has gained both in Accrington and elsewhere better legislation should be introduced, then Accrington's power would automatically cease. I am afraid there are other considerations. I, personally, feel that a local authority ought to be in a position to hold the balance evenly between the many claims that are made upon the public. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), apparently with a sneer, sought to put against the Accrington Corporation the fact that it once refused an appeal made on behalf of Dr. Barnardo's homes.

Mr. E. BROWN: It was not a sneer; it was a fact.

Mr. PALM: It is unworthy of him.

Mr. BROWN: May I say that I intended no sneer, and that my statement was taken from the evidence of the Chief Constable himself which was given before the Local Legislation Committee. He said they had been refused, and indeed in saying that he made a statement which was not accurate, namely, that there had never been any Accrington children in Dr. Barnardo's homes. As a matter of fact, there have been Accrington children in those homes.

Mr. PALIN: I do not know whether the statement was accurate or inaccurate,
but I know that the hon. Gentleman has no reason to interfere except to prejudice the Accrington Corporation.

Mr. BROWN: Not at all. It was a statement of fact.

Mr. PALIN: I am sure the Accrington Corporation can very properly refuse an application from Dr. Barnardo's homes without showing any lack of sympathy with Dr. Barnardo's homes or any other charity. I do not think it a right and proper thing for those who run these national charities to say that they are going to hold a house-to-house or street collection in any town without consulting the views of those responsible for the government of that town. In order to achieve the best results these collections ought to be carried out after full consultation with all the people concerned. I protest against any individual charity coming down and saying they are going to hold either a street collection or house-to-house collection regardless of the convenience of anyone else. If this regulation, or anything approximating to it, can stop that kind of thing, I think it will be all the better for charity. Charity is used as a cloak for a great many abuses. I feel that these authorities, at any rate, which are just as much subject to public opinion as are Members of this House, ought to be trusted to make or revise such a regulation as Accrington seeks.

9.0 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): The hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood), who seconded the rejection of this Clause, was quite right when he said that the original Clause as it was introduced in the Bill was very much wider than it is at the present time, and he was quite right also in saying that the Home Office was, to some extent, responsible for the modification of that Clause. I would like to point out to the House, that although that is the case, I do not think that either my right hon. Friend or myself is in any way prevented from reviewing the situation when it is dealt with, as it is being dealt with to-night, in a somewhat wider atmosphere than is possible upstairs. I would like to associate myself with the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw)
made in regard to the work of the Local Legislation Committee, because I think the very valuable and important work of that committee does not receive the appreciation to which it is, perhaps, entitled either on the Floor of this House or from the public outside.
I am sure the hon. Member for Stretford (Sir T. Robinson) will not for a moment consider that I am criticising him, if I say that we must be entitled, as we are entitled under the procedure in connection with Private Bill legislation, from time to time to review these questions, and to invite the, House itself to express its opinion upon them. The hon. Member gave certain reasons which actuated the Committee in accepting this Clause, and one of them he mentioned has been the fact that the Home Office have the power to confirm these regulations after they had been made by the Borough of Accrington. That is quite correct, but we all know that if that procedure is to he adopted, it will take a long time, even if the regulations made by the Borough of Accrington prove successful, before all the other boroughs in the country have adopted similar regulations, and those regulations have as will probably be the case, always been confirmed on similar lines by the Secretary of State. In the meantime, these individuals who make a profit out of this nefarious traffic will be able to move to those towns which have not yet made the regulations and carry on their work. I do not honestly think that the suggestion that the Home Office can confirm the regulations of a particular town when those regulations have been submitted to the Home Office is really any guarantee that the traffic will be put a stop to except in that locality. I would like to point out to the House that in reinforcement of his argument the hon. Gentleman produced one or two cases where individuals have been found guilty of carrying on these illicit street collections. If the Members of the House will turn to the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Supervision of Charities they will find, in Paragraph 96, a statement in which the Committee say:
We see no ground for doubting that the great majority of charities are managed not only honestly but with reasonable prudence, and that such dishonesty as does exist is due mainly to the recurring operation of a few people, either known or suspected to be fraudulent, whose gains, in all
probabillty, amount only to a very small part of the vast sums which are given for charity. It is our considered opinion that the demand for supervision, such as it is, does in act rest almost entirely upon these persons' activities.
That shows the disadvantage of trying to found your case upon individual or isolated instances. It also shows the disadvantage of trying to deal with this question by slow local methods. I fully appreciate the fact that the Local Legislation Committee have passed this Clause, and that they consider that, in itself, it is not likely to do any harm, although I am inclined to take the view to some extent that if it is not likely to do any harm, it is not likely to be a cure for the evil which we are trying to cure. Apparently, the Committee were of that opinion, because in paragraph 121 of their Report they definitely state that:
The simplest method of supervising door-to-door collections appears to be by framing Regulations similar to those for street collections, but in order to secure uniformity—the need for which is clearly much greater—we suggest that the Regulations should be made not by the police authority but by the Secretary of State, and should apply throughout the country.
One hon. Member asked, "Why do you not deal with this question in the same way that street collections have been dealt with?" I imagine the reply in that case is that the local police authorities have the power of putting into force model regulations made by the Home Office; but the two positions are not the same. The Act of 1916 was passed during the War to deal with what were commonly called flag days, which came into existence because of the War and which were practically taking place in every town in the country, which made it necessary for the local watch committees to put into force some sort of regulation to prevent fraud. That is not the case at the present time in regard to these door-to-door collections. Many towns e probably having no trouble in the matter. In other cases probably the only collections which are made are made by the large national organisations and not by the local organisations. Therefore, I do, not think the two questions are to be looked at from the same point of view.
The Home Office in considering this question must be guided to some extent by the attitude of the large charitable
organisations. Those organisations were to a considerable extent responsible for my right hon. Friend setting up this departmental committee. They gave the bulk of the evidence on which the recommendations of the Committee were very largely founded, and if the attitude of these large organisations, all of whom we know to be above any possibility of criticism, is that this is a question that should be dealt with nationally, then I think my right hon. Friend must give due weight to that point of view. When I am asked, as I am asked, whether I am prepared to give an undertaking that this question will be dealt with by legislation, I can but say that the recommendations of this Departmental Committee have been under the consideration of my right hon. Friend, that he is prepared to try to introduce legislation dealing with this question, but, and there is a but, the House must realise that it would not he possible to introduce legislation dealing with the subject this Session. It is to some extent a contentious question. Not only is it contentious but it is a question which is rather difficult to frame in legislation. Not only have you to deal with the machinery by means of which these regulations are to be brought into force, but when you come to consider your machinery you have to consider whether it is not better in the case of the big organisations that the licences should be issued centrally by the Secretary of State, whilst in the case of the very small local organisations it would probably be better to devolve that power on the local authority or the local Watch committee.
These questions have all to be considered and I do not think it is possible to introduce legislation on the question this Session; but my right hon. Friend is sympathetic and I feel sure that if opportunity offers—I am not in a position to say whether opportunity will offer or not—he will endeavour to deal with this question as soon as possible. Should it be possible to deal with it next year, I feel sure that he will do so. If it is the sense of the House that it would be better to deal with this question nationally and the House decide to delete this particular Clause from the Bill, my right hon. Friend
will give due weight to that decision, not only in framing his legislation but also in considering when that legislation shall be introduced. I can assure the House as far as I am concerned—I was at one time very closely connected with the British Legion—I will not hesitate to convey to my right hon. Friend the feeling of the House on this question and their attitude towards it.

Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: I am sure that the House has listened with great interest to the statement which has been made by the Under-Secretary, but he will forgive me for saying that although he has pointed out the difficulties of the position, he has given us no enlightenment on it. I was hoping that he would have made a statement which would have been of some service to us, but in the latter part of his speech almost every sentence was spoiled by either a "but" or an "if." I think the House is not in a position to accept guidance from him unless he is more definite. I have listened to every speech in this Debate. Some of the speeches have perplexed me and some have amused me. I remember well, and many hon. Members will recollect, the great role which Lord Banbury used to fill in this House. He always complained of grandmotherly legislation and that we had too much legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for my native county of Cardigan (Mr. Morris) is the last man in this House that I would have expected to take up the mantle of Lord Banbury. I must revise my views in regard to him as the Member for my native county.
I should like to bring the House back to the real facts of the Debate. The Accrington Corporation, and I speak with authority as the Member of Parliament for Accrington, promoted a Bill, which they brought before the Local Legislation Committee. The right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) paid a well-deserved tribute to the Members of that Committee. The corporation asked for powers to deal with house-to-house collections. The Chief Constable gave evidence, and after hearing the arguments and the evidence of the witnesses, the Local Legislation Committee granted the powers asked for.
Objection has been taken by hon. Members who have spoken for a number of deserving charities. I find that two
main objections have been taken to this particular Clause, and one objection is destructive of the other. In the first place, we had the fears expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Pancras, North (Captain Fraser), who moved the rejection of the Clause, that in the operation of the Clause the national charities will suffer—the Salvation Army, the British Legion, St. Dunstan's, Dr. Barnardo's, and so forth. I should like to assure the hon. and gallant Member that he is a very worthy and very eloquent spokesman of those charities, and the House always listens to him with the respect which he deserves. But I can assure him that his fears are entirely groundless. If I thought that the Accrington Corporation would in any way, on the strength of this Clause, act to the detriment of any of those great organisations I should certainly vote against it, but knowing the men of Accrington as I do, knowing something of the reputation of the town—and if the hon. and gallant Member will make inquiries with regard to St. Dunstan's and the British Legion, he will find that they have always had the fullest measure of support in the town—

Captain FRASER: I intended to make no suggestion that Accrington had ever been anything but most generous. May Accrington be always led by the same people. Our fears are that it may not always be led by the same people.

Mr. EDWARDS: I deeply appreciate the tribute which the hon. and gallant Member has paid to Accrington. I quite agree with him that whilst Accrington is represented as it is to-day there is no cause for alarm, and I share his hope to the full that it may long continue to be so represented. I hope, however, that the hon. and gallant Member and those associated with him will disabuse their minds at once of any idea that there is any possibility of any kind that this clause, if it is allowed to remain in the Bill, will be made operative to the detriment of any of these societies. I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Preston pay his tribute to the Town Council of Accrington. As he truly said, it is a council consisting of representatives of all parties and composed of some of the most public spirited men in Lancashire. The town this year is celebrating its
jubilee and I hope the House will permit me to say that there is no corporation in the country that has a better record for administrative government than the Town Council of Accrington. That is one of the objections; the groundless fear that this clause will be made operative to the detriment of these deserving charities.
The other great objection is this. It is said to be a national evil; let it be treated in a national way. The hon. Member for Newcastle West (Mr. Palin) has dealt splendidly with the abjection raised by some of his own friends on the Labour Benches. It used to be said that it. was folly to bring coals to Newcastle, to-night we have had light from Newcastle. No one with the exception of the hon. Member for Cardigan has taken exception to or doubted the existence of the evil of house-to-house collection. The hon. Lady who represents Berwick-on-Tweed (Mrs. Philipson) was a member of the Departmental Committee. Let me read just one or two sentences from their Report. This is what they say:
There was an almost unanimous opinion on the part of the witnesses who appeared before us that the one method of collection which demands control more than any other (except street collections) is that of door-to-door collections. The fraudulent enterprises which have been brought to our notice depend, for the most part, largely on these collections; it is clear that people often give the canvassers money merely to get rid of them, and in the view of the police witnesses their control would quickly cause these fraudulent charities to die of starvation.

Mrs. PHILIPSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with that point. He has said that it would be perfectly simple for these bogus people to go to another town where there are no restrictions.

Mr. EDWARDS: The whole House, with one exception, agrees that the evil exists; that this free, unfettered, unrestricted house to house collection is fraught with evil. But hon. Members ask: Why Accrington? The hon. and gallant Member who moved the rejection said that this was the thin end of the wedge. He objects to the insertion of the thin end of the wedge because it is not the thick end.

Captain FRASER: No, because it is the wrong wedge.

Mr. EDWARDS: At any rate, it is a wedge. He complained that Accrington has not given any definition of a charity. He abstains from giving us the definitions of a wedge. He objects to the wedge altogether. It is asked: Why should Accrington have this advantage unless the whole nation has it as well? Blackpool has an advantage which no other watering place in the country enjoys. Every other watering place is restricted to a penny rate for the purposes of advertising. Blackpool promoted a private Bill in this House and, being an enterprising community, got a Clause inserted giving them the right to levy a bigger rate than a penny—I forget what the actual amount is at the moment. Supposing it had been said then: Why should Blackpool have this right; why should not other watering places have it as well? It is true that Blackpool has profited by it. It has been able to spend more money on advertising—

Sir COOPER RAWSON: May I suggest, that it may be necessary for Blackpool to spend more money on advertising?

Mr. EDWARDS: ft is very unfortunate that the hon. Member for Blackpool (Sir W. de Frece) is not present, but anyone who looks at the hon. Member for Blackpool will realise that he requires no advertising. However, that does not touch my argument. The House gave Blackpool a right, a power, which other watering places in the country do not possess, simply and solely because it had the enterprise to ask for it, and now other watering places, including the favourite resort of the hon. Member for Brighton (Sir Cooper Rawson) whichever it is, is clamouring for the power to levy a bigger rate than 1d. Accrington has been quite well aware of the promise of the Home Office for a long time that they are going to legislate and deal with the question on a national basis, but Accrington got quite tired of the 'ifs" and "'buts," and when they promoted this Bill they said, "We will ask for it," and the Local Legislation Committee said that this enterprising town should have it; and it is in the Bill. I ask the House to ratify the wise decision of the Local Legislation Committee. The Committee has sat for weeks upon this Bill. It has cost Accrington a lot of money, and I
am afraid it may be thought that they are getting far less out of it than they deserve.
I hope the House will pass the Bill with this Clause in. It is no use hon. Members above the Gangway speaking about the rights of local bodies and about devolution and refusing an enterprising community the right to discriminate between legitimate and bogus house-to-house collections. The House to-night has been switched from a discussion of the Board of Trade Vote, from the consideration of unemployment in trade and other great national questions which touch the welfare of the whole country, in order to consider for the last two hours whether this enterprising town council and enlightened community shall have the power to discriminate between legitimate and bogus collections. I appeal to the House to do away with these groundless fears and pettifogging ideas and with this refusal to break away from bureaucracy, and to give us these powers. I do hope that it will set aside all these groundless fears, and accept my assurance that there is absolutely no foundation for them.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I have listened to this Debate with keen interest. I may say at once that I claim that those on the Local Legislation Committee were just as keen to safeguard charities as every Member of the House. Indeed, the very fact that we accepted the Clause was not for the purpose of preventing genuine charities for genuine purposes, but the very contrary. Our position was that we were trying our best as members of the Committee to safeguard the position of charities—charities which, I regret to say, are necessary, though one remembers that the people who benefit by them were told that a generous country would never forget them during the remainder of their years. I am sorry to have to turn down the eloquence of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Edwards). Many of us here, after hearing the statement of the Under-Secretary, are willing to accept that in good faith. It means that Accrington will have to wait another year. We believe that Accrington would have carried out exactly what they said they would do. In their evidence before the Committee they were very straight. and said they had no intention whatever
of debarring any real charity from having anything the people of Accrington might care to give them, and that, therefore, all they were asking for was the power to prevent bogus charities. I do not place so much value on what is said about people being quite axle to look after themselves. I agree to some extent with that remark, but, after all, people who give to charities do not know that collections are being made by bogus people who never give up the money, and the charities themselves do not know what money is being collected from people in their name. I would ask for the Clause to be withdrawn, and let us have it in a national Bill. We have had 1½ hours' discussion, and Accrington's action in bringing this matter before the House has served a good purpose. If Accrington will wait, it will get the same results when the new Bill becomes an Act of Parliament as promised. I have, therefore, to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Clause, and let us deal with the matter in a national way.

Sir T. ROBINSON: After conferring with my colleagues on the Local Legislation Committee, and having in mind the promise made by the representative of the Home Office, we have decided to withdraw the Clause from the Bill. We say very definitely that we trust the promise made from the Front Bench will be realised before this Parliament comes to an end. I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1928.

CLASS VI.

SUPPLY.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £100,775, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the
year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and Subordinate Departments, including certain Services arising out of the War.

Question again proposed.

Mr. KELLY: When we were discussing the Board of Trade Vote at half-past seven, we were dealing with the points put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. I want to deal with the rosy picture drawn by the hon. Gentleman, who reminded us, just as the President did earlier in the afternoon, that in industry to-day there are 500,000 more people employed than were engaged in industry in the days before the War. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to be a little more precise and to give the Committee some idea where these people are employed and the industries in which they are engaged, because I remember that it is only the other day that we received figures from the Minister of Labour which certainly did not indicate the rosy picture which the hon. Gentleman drew for us, Figures were then given to us covering the building trade the engineering trade, and the cotton industry, each of which has been dealt with by the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon. All these figures showed that there was a considerable amount of unemployment and under-employment in those particular industries. I venture to suggest that if those basic industries upon which we have depended for so long are in this depressed or approaching depressed condition, then the picture is not quite so rosy as the hon. Gentleman drew for us to-day. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what it is they are doing in order to help industry to reach the position in which it will be, if not prosperous, at least approaching prosperity.
What is being done with regard to raw materials that could be raised in this country? I have in mind such raw materials as were referred to at great length by the President of the Board of Trade. Is anything being done to help our own people to raise these materials I There are the in mines of Cornwall, for instance. I know that this is not a mining Debate, but the President laid great stress upon the materials which are imported into this country, and I submit that if we can raise raw materials
in this country, we ought to see that those who are now unemployed and are capable of being engaged on this work, are so engaged. That result could be brought about by a development of the tin-mining industry in Cornwall. I know that some assistance would be required. I am not asking for a subsidy, but I hold that it is the duty of the Board of Trade to ascertain why there is neglect of the tin mines in Cornwall.
I return now to engineering. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that engineering was in a much better position than formerly. I ask him to let us know what is happening with regard to the textile machinery trade. That trade is not dependent wholly on cotton. Textile machinery is used to-day for the manufacture of artificial silk, and many firms have spent a great deal of time and money in order to equip themselves for this production. I had expected that the President of the Board of Trade would have dealt with this side of the question. He does not help us by jumbling together the figures of marine engineering, machine tools and textile machinery, and then telling us that the conditions are such that we can hope for a prosperous time in the near future. I hope that we shall be told something about that particular industry.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of shipbuilding, and told us that there was an improvement. He said that we were now engaged in the building of 49 per cent. of the world's new ships. I do not know whether he feels happy about it. I certainly think that we shall have to improve to a much greater extent before we bring shipbuilding into a position that that industry would regard as prosperous. A good deal has been done by the efforts not only of shipbuilders and the employers generally, but of the shipbuilding trade unions.
With regard to cotton, can we be given figures to indicate what prospect the Board of Trade can hold out for the future. This industry has suffered from unemployment and under-employment for many years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) stated yesterday that it had suffered for a much longer time than most of the industries of the country. Recently we asked that
an investigation by the Government, should take place, but the Government sheltered themselves behind the statement that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce was holding an inquiry. Do the Board of Trade intend to leave the matter there or are they looking into the position of the industry in order to see what can be done?
We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that there was a considerable improvement in the figures of income of the people in many of the industries of the country. He said that where the wages were fixed by a sliding scale based on the cost-of-living figures of the Board of Trade the people were no worse off. He had 1924 in his mind. I do not know whether he feels happy in using these figures. Anyone who understands the life of working people never attempts to use them, and as a negotiator for many industries I have refused from the onset, even in the days when advances of wages were offered on that basis, to use those figures. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the Committee what constitutes the cost-of-living figure, and what standard of life is realised on the basis of the Board of Trade scales. Does he accept it as a reasonable standard of life?
I say that it is an unfair and unjust way of dealing with wages. The Parliamentary Secretary need not attempt to put it on the shoulders of the Ministry of Labour. I shall deal with the Ministry of Labour at the right moment. The hon. Gentleman has no right to suggest that the position of the workpeople is a happy one because their wages have been reduced only by the amount shown in the cost-of-living index figure. That figure represents a standard of life that is not worthy of the citizens of the country. It is a basis on which I shall refuse at all times to base the standard of life of those who are engaged in industry. Then the Parliamentary Secretary told us that in other cases where the workers had not had their wages reduced by this cost-of-living scale, real wages had gone up, and that the workers were in a much better position.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House which of the industries dealt with to-day by the President of the Board of Trade pay a wage which is adequate
for a reasonable standard of life? Even without waiting for his reply, I am prepared to say here and now that there is no industry in this country which is paying a reasonable wage—that is a wage which is adequate for a reasonable standard of life among its workers—and it is well known that that remark applies to Government Departments as well as to industries. I hope it will not be suggested that we should accept the picture painted by the President and the Parliamentary Secretary to-day as showing that there is a prospect of a great revival at this time. Certainly, the Government Departments concerned are doing nothing to bring about that improvement which is required, and, for that reason and because of the explanations offered by the Board of Trade or rather the want of them, I move this reduction of the Vote.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: It is unfortunate that a Debate of this importance should have been interrupted by the Debate on a Private Bill, and that the interest which might otherwise have been sustained in this discussion, has, to some extent, evaporated owing to that interruption. As has been suggested by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) it is very important that we should give close consideration to the matters which come within the purview of the Board of Trade. In the first place, one must express great sympathy with the President of the Board of Trade, who was handicapped during the latter portion of his speech by news, very serious for him, which we all deplore. I may also say that the Committee are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for a statement with regard to the statistical position of the trade of this country which was very informative, and, which will, I believe, prove useful to a great number of trades in this country. Having said so much, one must add that there was little in the actual figures submitted by the right hon. Gentleman to justify the spirit of optimism which he displayed. The disturbing factor is that we do not seem to be regaining with anything like sufficient rapidity the position which we held before the War in our export trade.
One found it very difficult to take complete notes of all the figures of volume which the right hon. Gentleman hurled at us, but many of us will study them with
a great deal of interest when we have them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As far as I could gather from the figures, there are, here and there, certain hopeful signs of improvement in the volume of production in some of our important industries, but we are still in the very serious position of having an adverse balance of trade, with regard to actual imports and exports of merchandise, which is not fully compensated for by our invisible exports, and which must seriously limit the volume of our investments overseas. Anyone who has been connected with the Board of Trade knows how very important that is with regard to the maintenance and the extension of our trade in the future. As long as we have that serious diminution of the balance available from this country, For investment overseas, so long will it be difficult for us to extend the overseas market about which the Parliamentary secretary spoke this evening. It is not my intention, however, to deal at great length with that aspect of the subject. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), in what I think may fairly be described from this side as a very cogent speech, gave his view and our view with regard to the general position. I desire to say something further about one particular point which he brought to the notice of the Committee. He drew attention to the fact, which has been mentioned again and again, and which has, once more, been brought into prominence by the report of the Balfour Committee, that in this count we have a greatly increasing number of amalgamations and combinations in industries of the productive, wholesale and distributing types.
We on this side have pointed out frequently that the inevitable result of the working of the capitalist system, sooner or later, would be that those who have always been the protagonists of the competitive individualist system would be forced to see that competition was bound to fail, and that a great effort would be made in the direction of forming amalgamations in industry. We feel that while there is a great deal to be said for the securing of the economies which are possible and the increased efficiency which may be achieved by the elimination of competition, and the strengthening of trade combinations, there is also very great danger to the whole community, if
the Government do not keep a proper watch on these developments. If the Government do not, by administrative or other action, apply the necessary remedies the ultimate effect will be not to improve, as we on this side desire to see them improved, the avenues of employment, the general standard of life of the workers, and the position of the community in general, but will be to create special advantages for those who are enabled, by means of the ownership of capital—still owned by them although controlled in amalgamated and combined concerns—to secure far too large profits at the expense of the community. This matter is difficult to handle in Committee or Supply, because it is not possible to suggest to the representatives of the Government what legislative action ought to be taken. I think, however, we are quite in order in drawing attention to the failure of the Board of Trade, under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, to take advantage of current discusions in Parliament upon legislation. I think we are entitled to comment upon the attitude of those at the head of the Department towards legislation which is passing through the House of Commons.
The Greene Committee made certain recommendations for the amendment of the Companies Acts. These were based almost entirely upon their evident recognition of the fact that if these great amalgamations continued, it was essential, in the interests of the community, that the greatest publicity possible should be given to the operations of those amalgamations. The Committee made certain recommendations as to what should be included in the Measure which is being fathered by the Board of Trade. It is impossible to-night for us to discuss the terms of that legislation, but I think we are entitled to protest that, in dealing with that legislation, the attitude of the Board of Trade has not been helpful. If there is anything in the case of the Greene Committee at all, if there is anything in the fact that the Balfour Committee, in dealing with the factors in commercial efficiency, thought fit to draw attention especially to the recommendations of the Greene Committee, then surely, with the same uncanny accuracy with which the Parliamentary Secretary and his chief always interpret the recommendations of
the safeguarding committees, they ought also to interpret the findings of the Balfour Committee and the Greene Committee and see that their policy with regard to combinations in industry is as much guided by committees of that kind as it is usually guided in regard to the imposition of safeguarding duties.
I would like to draw some attention to a point in the administration of the Board of Trade which I think has not been mentioned before to-night. Previous occasions on which I have addressed the Committee on the Board of Trade Vote have been many, and I have usually had something to say about the operations of one of the sub-Departments of the Board, and that is the work of the Food Council. I appreciate very much the self-sacrifice and devoted attention to the subject-matter which is brought to the Food Council by many of the members of that body, and I believe that the publicity achieved with regard to certain of the matters with which they have dealt has been helpful, but I also believe that the Government have not gone anything like far enough to make it possible for the work of the Food Council to be really effective. I should have liked the representative of the Department to have told us whether or not the reply of the Prime Minister in the House the other day with regard to the powers of the Food Council is to be actually implemented.
There again I am in rather a difficult position. I cannot ask if the Board of Trade is now going to introduce legislation, but I am entitled to make some inquiries as to the present position. What we understood was that a further endeavour was to be made to get information for the Food Council from certain traders, or classes of traders, who up to the present had declined to give information which the Council regarded as essential. I understand that, as a result of the statement which was made in the House by the Prime Minister, further communications were sent by the Food Council to certain traders, who were given a time limit in which to reply. I think we ought to know to-night, if possible, whether all those traders have in fact supplied, to the satisfaction of the Food Council, all the information required, and whether or not, therefore, the Government consider any further action to be
necessary. I hold the view very strongly, from the light of experience, that if the Food Council is to be really effective, the Board of Trade will have to take much more drastic measures than they have yet appeared likely to take.
10.0 p.m.
The only other matter with which I desire to deal is in regard to the general question raised to-night by the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden), who dealt with the procedure followed by the Board of Trade with regard to safeguarding inquiries. His complaint with regard to the procedure under the Safeguarding Act is made, of course, from an entirely different angle from that which we should usually adopt from this side. I observed from the answers which were given recently, and brought up to date to-day by the President of the Board of Trade, that there have actually been no fewer than 49 applications under the safeguarding procedure, of which only nine have been effective, and that, therefore, very large and important bodies of traders in this country have been in a continuous state of unsettlement as to what was going to happen in many of the commodities which were a part of their business—in many cases a very important part—and in respect of which, if they wanted to be really effective, they would have had to appear before every one of those safeguarding committees to give evidence.
It will perhaps be convenient if I put the case of the body with which I am connected. There have been, out of the 49 cases which have been submitted under the safeguarding procedure, at least 36 dealing with commodities every one of which affected the business of the co-operative movement in the country. If we had really wanted to have an effective voice with regard to the final decision of these ex parte committees appointed by the Board of Trade, it would mean that we should have had to prepare evidence, select witnesses, and appear before all those safeguarding committees. It would have been a sheer impossibility for a body of that size to be continuously engaged in the preparation and submission of evidence before committees of this kind. I am not at all sure that, from some points of view, it would not have been better to go the whole hog desired by the Parliamentary
Secretary and, instead of having all this pettifogging and stupid detail connected with safeguarding, have had at least a modified general tariff. I should, of course, strongly oppose a general tariff, but, from the point of view of interference and uncertainty in the general trade of the country, it would be much more convenient for the people who have to deal with a very large number of commodities. I feel that, from that point of view, the Parliamentary Secretary ought to see that the procedure is screwed up, not in the direction desired by the hon. Member for North Bradford, but in the other direction.
I observe, from an analysis of some of the cases dealt with under the Safeguarding Act, that in some of the cases the application has been turned down because the committee has decided that the industry was not one of substantial importance. I cannot understand how such an application as that ever gets beyond the hon. Member. How does an application of that kind ever get to a committee at all? Why is it published abroad that there is going to be a committee sitting and dealing with trades of that kind, which are in the event not considered by the committee to be substantial, and that the people who are engaged in a particular trade have at least to begin to canvass, to prepare evidence, and to select witnesses, only to discover that the committee decides that it is not a trade of substantial importance in accordance with the terms of the White Paper? If that be the position, surely that application ought to be turned down in the firs place by the Board of Trade. After all, I cannot feel that that would be a very difficult matter for the Board of Trade They did not hesitate to refer to a quite different body than the Safeguarding Committees the application of the iron and steel trade. In that case the applicants were far too large and far too important, in the view of the Board of Trade, for the matter to be dealt with by a Safeguarding Committee. Surely, if that be the case, it ought not to be impossible for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that trades which are not, of substantial importance ought not to have their applications referred to the Committee, and the whole of the traders in consequence put to a great deal of inconvenience and unnecessary bother. So much for matters of administration.
I close with a note about the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell). In the course of a reasoned argument, my hon. Friend dealt very briefly with the question of the relation of consumption to production. It is a point to which the Board of Trade might very well in considering their general policy, give far more consideration than they have yet given to the matter. It is true that the Balfour Committee in their Report make it clear that, in some of the industries in this country, we are still below the standard of efficiency in production that can be produced in evidence from other countries; but, speaking generally, it is true to say that very largely the problems of production have been solved, and in fact where we have still a great deal of progress to make, it is pretty certain that we shall make progress as the result of the development of 10 or 20 years of real co-operative research work. So we may say that, generally speaking, the problems of production, if not already solved, are being rapidly solved. What we are not solving in this country, or in any of the great industrial countries of the world, is how to relate the consumption of what we produce to the constantly increasing powers of production. The Parliamentary Secretary replied in a rather jocular way to my hon. Friend, and said that, of course, if you at once double the purchasing power of the working-class community in this country, you would really not help yourselves very much. In fact, you would create a kind of industrial and commercial chaos, upset the balance of industry, and begin to change about the various demands which at present exist for good in the community; but the Parliamentary Secretary must know quite well that any properly thought out policy and scheme which is adopted to improve the consumption of the people in relation to the increasing powers of production, would not seek at once to double the purchasing power of the pepole. That would itself create chaos.
We ask that every possible step should be taken to see first, that the existing wage of the workers should be made, as far as possible, a real wage by the elimination of profiteering; and second, that when you consider what is produced
in the way of wealth in goods and services by industry, you should see that the worker gets such a share of the profits that he becomes a much more highly efficient factor in the demand for goods than he is at the present time. All the Government seem to do is to devise schemes for the relief of this and that industry, making it more and more possible for profits to be made for those who have capital in industrial production, whether in single joint stock companies, or in actual amalgamations and combinations. Where large profits are made, it is quite plain that they are used again and again for re-investment in some productive plant for higher powers of production, before the problem of how to sell the increasing amount of production has been solved. I will put my point again from the co-operative point of view. It will not be accepted by many of the industrialists in the House, and by many of those who deal with finance in industry. We believe that some return on capital is necessary in order that you may replace wasted assets, and in order that you may provide for further capital development; but, taking the long years of experience which we have had in production, although I agree that we probably produce for a rather more certain market than is the case with some other productive factories, we have proved conclusively that, even in dealing with large scale production, a return of capital employed in industry of 5 per cent. is sufficient. If you can arrange for a maximum return on capital employed in industry of 5 per cent. cumulative—

Mr. DIXEY: Free of Income Tax?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member falls quickly into error. There is no share in co-operative capital which is free from income tax. All members of co-operative societies, who are themselves liable for Income Tax, are liable for it on their share capital. The point which I want to make is that over a long period of years we have proved that we can get all the capital required to cover the two primary things of replacing wasting assets and providing capital for further industrial development, by having a return limited to 5 per cent., using the whole of the rest of the balance on productive industry for increasing the purchasing power of the consumer. We believe that, under any system that
could be introduced into our general industry in this country in which we could really relate the powers of production to the actual consuming powers of the population, we should not only finally improve production but we should practically do away with unemployment. There is no other cure for unemployment but that. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that I have frequently dealt with the tremendous need for improving our export markets by finding new markets, and I shall never move away from that. It is absolutely vital in this country, and yet I welcome the fact, which was mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade, that to-day the home market of this country is of very vital importance. But if that be so, the purchasing power of the people is of vital importance, and it is because the purchasing power of the people is kept so little in relation to the total wealth produced by productive industry, that our home market is not such a good factor as it ought to be. It is from that point of view that I think that the Board of Trade are lacking in constructive policy, and that we have very largely decided to-night to raise this question with the Government.

Mr. T. SHAW: When the President of the Board of Trade was speaking, I took the greatest interest in the figures he gave, because he took 1924 as the starting point. May I call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that there are certain figures in connection with 1924 which his right hon. Friend did not mention, and figures that constitute a strange phenomenon. In 1924 there was a huge increase in the rates of wages paid, and there was a huge decrease in the number of working people who had to go to the guardians for relief. It was an absolutely exceptional year. From 1920 to 1928 that year 1924 stands out as an exceptional year, because of the fact that wages increased and the number of working people going to the guardians declined. It will take a great deal of explanation, a great many percentages and a skilful use of figures to get over those two essential facts. This occurred in a year when there was less safeguarding of industries than in any year since the War, and a year in which many protective taxes were withdrawn. These are facts which the Parliamentary Secretary
should carefully consider, because they have a hearing on the state of trade in this country and may afford some basis of calculation for action to be taken in the future.
The Parliamentary Secretary has been pointing out the hundreds of thousands of workers now in so-called insured employment in excess of the number in 1924, but may I call attention to the fact that the population of the world is increasing, that the number of our potential customers is increasing in at least as great a ratio as our own population, and if all we can do is to mark time and accept as permanent conditions in which we have 1,100,000 persons permanently unemployed, then God help the country! The Parliamentary Secretary has trotted out the idea that what this country needs is production and more production. There is no greater fallacy in the world than that parrot cry. More is produced in this country now than we can dispose of. We can produce immensely larger quantities of coal than we can dispose of, and immensely larger quantities of goods. The cotton industry was the greatest exporting industry in the country and I believe still is. It is not production that is suffering. We can produce in unlimited quantities.

Mr. DIXEY: What about iron and steel?

Mr. SHAW: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I will repeat it again quite slowly. We can produce in this country all the really basic things of life, with the possible exception of food, in over abundant quantities. The largest exporting industry in the country is the cotton trade. In the cotton trade we could produce at least 20 per cent. more than we are producing. What is the fact is that the people have not got money enough to purchase the goods we do produce.

Mr. DIXEY: That is not the point I put at all.

Mr. SHAW: The hon. Gentleman will pardon me if I cannot follow the very intricate processes of his mental activities.

Mr. DIXEY: It is because you cannot answer.

Mr. ELLIS: The right hon. Gentleman said food, but he must also include raw materials.

Mr. SHAW: It is perfectly true that we need raw materials, but we can only pay for them by manufactured goods. It is not true to say that we lack production, because we possess both production and a capacity for producing more. What is at fault is not the fact that we cannot produce but that our system has broken down, and the world cannot dispose of the wealth that is produced. We have countless millions of capital in this country lying idle, and we have at the same time 1,100,000 unemployed who could be working with that unemployed capital. If a madman had deliberately designed the world with all the phantasmagoria of a diseased brain he could not have designed anything worse than a state of things in which we have millions of capital lying idle and millions of men unemployed. We are told that we on this side are impracticable people and that our suggestions would bring the world to ruin.
We see in this House the boasted practical men who are supposed to be so superior to the weak dreamers on this side of the House. These are the men who boast of the great things they have achieved at a time when we have 1,100,000 men idle and hundreds of millions of capital lying idle at the same time. Hon. Members opposite claim that they are practical people. The Government have a majority in this House of two to one and they are all powerful. Where are your brains? What are you doing with all your powers? Why do you allow a state of things to exist in which unemployed workmen and unemployed capital ale to be found side by side? We wait in vain for the answer. We are told that things are going to be better, although we know that people are applying to the guardians in increasing numbers and the unemployed figures do not diminish.
The 1,100,000 unemployed who appear on the books of the Employment Exchanges do not represent the total of the unemployed in this country. Only a Census would tell us that. We know that we have more than 1,000,000 unemployed, and instead of getting any relief we get elaborate rainbows painted by the President of the Board of Trade. Some
of the mining villages of this country disclose a state of affairs which is a disgrace to any nation, and no civilised nation would allow the people to live under the condition in which the people are living to-day in our mining villages. At a time when that state of things exists we are told things are going to be better. There is a wave of the red rag, and we are told that the Russians are going to conquer us.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is getting a little away from the Board of Trade Vote.

Mr. SHAW: I suggest that it is the business of the Government to bring the unemployed and unemployed capital together, and the people should be provided with a reasonable share of the wealth they produce. I suggest that that is their business, and that, instead of doing their business, they are attempting to paint us very rosy pictures, but not to do any of the work. We are desperately anxious that they should do the work; we are desperately anxious that the President of the Board of Trade should come down to the House and say: "Here are our schemes, and the results are to be seen now. We have reduced, say in three months, by the use of certain methods, the unemployment figures from 1,100,000 to 700,000. We have secured, by the methods we have adopted, by sane administration and wise advice to various industrial interests in the country, such a better method of working that people now are having higher wages and better conditions than before, and we claim from the House, not only a recognition of our work, but that honour should be paid to it." If they did that, we on these benches would he the first to give them honour, but all that. we got is a statement that in 1924 the percentage was 100, and in 1928 we can call it 111, and things of that kind, and we see things getting, not better, but worse.
The actual production of basic wealth in this country is not really increasing. I venture to put to the hon. Gentleman this point, that the only industries that are flourishing in this country are not those which produce the basic articles, but are luxury industries and the banks. Banking is flourishing while industry is
perishing. That is a question which the hon. Gentleman might consider. The banks have apparently so much money that every corner in every town has a new bank. They really cannot spend their money, and all the' time industry is perishing. What does the right hon. Gentleman come and say his Department has done in this matter? It is a thing that any man in the street can see. He does not need to ask questions; he can see the thing with his own eyes. What is the Board of Trade doing? They suggest nothing by which industry could shake itself free of its shackles, employ more people, and give better results. In the cotton trade, for instance, there are certain things that cannot be done by anyone, but there is the fact that in the boom a number of people, some of whom, as I said in a previous speech, got titles when they ought to have got sentences, came into the county and walked out, without a single moment's real work, with millions of pounds. Of course, we wicked Socialists on this side would suggest that a man should work for what he gets, but not the practical people on the other side. Where has the Board of Trade made any suggestion that would help the real workers of the country to get the wealth that they create, instead of its being the fact as it is now, that the very last way to get wealth is to produce it, and the best way to get it is either to gamble or to juggle with it?
What I am saying now applies not merely to the workers, but to the employers. The employers are finding themselves in the grip of the octopus just as the workers are, and all the time, with all these problems, we find the President of the Board of Trade, apparently, quite oblivious to the developments of modern industry, and certainly either not willing or not able to tell the House what his Department intends to do in order to improve the system. The ramifications of capital now are like the feelers of the octopus I spoke of, stretching over the world, and we find British capital employing textile workers at Lodz, in Poland, while textile workers in this country are unemployed. We find Dutch capital employed here while Dutchmen may be walking the streets unemployed.
The opposite party has preached to us the system that competition alone will
develop the best faculties of mankind and will bring manhood to the highest, and that if you adopt methods of cooperation you will go slack and will not be able to build up a strong country. All that has gone to the wall. It is as dead as the dodo, and it has been killed by its own great apostles. The right hon. Gentleman who is about to be transferred to a place where the seats are red—I think he will be very comfortable on them—was the greatest apostle of this great doctrine. He read very lengthy lectures to the hon. Gentleman and his chief on what ought to be done and he extolled the virtues of competition. I am afraid they took notice of his lectures. I want to call the hon. Gentleman's, attention to the fact, and I hope he will report it to his chief, that the very great apostle of competition is now engaged in doing all he can to kill it and he is engaged, not only in this country but in many countries of the world, deliberately trying to kill the golden figure that he set up, whilst asking us, as well as his own party, to worship it.
This question of the disappearance of competition and the growth of an entirely new force in industry is a matter for the very serious consideration of the Board of Trade You can call it rationalisation, co-operation, trust, whatever you like, but in essence it is the absolute giving up of the idea of competition and its replacement by a system of co-operation. That is a fact that the hon. Gentleman and his chief will have to take into consideration, whether they like it or not. It is the only thing that is likely to save many industries in this country. The idea that unlimited competition can save them ha now been given up even by its warmest advocates. We can look at this with a certain amount of equanimity. We are not unaware of the dangers of the new method of combination. We are not unaware of the tremendous power that these new methods will give to the huge organisations that are springing up all over the world. We are not unaware of the danger that exists for the workers under the growth of these tremendous institutions, but some of us, and certainly I am amongst the number, believe that this development is as inevitable as that night should follow day, and that whether we like it or not, the old ideas of commerce and industry will have to
die and be replaced by the new order of combination, centralisation and co-operation, and it is just in this time of change, when everything in the world shows a change directly going on from one system of industry to another, that it is necessary that the Board of Trade, above all other Departments in the State, should have its finger on the pulse of things and be able to give the House practical suggestions for dealing with the new state of things that has arisen.
I have already referred to the fact that the only industries, apparently, that are prosperous in this country are either the luxury trades or the great financial interests. What do the Government do in order to meet this condition of affairs? They certainly have given, as far as I know, no constructive help in the development of either mining or cotton or shipbuilding or engineering. Instead of devoting themselves to big things, they play with the safeguarding of buttons, and I think the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) pointed out that they actually did get as far as putting a tax on mugs of all shapes and sizes. They put a tax on a few pans that come into the country. That is what they are doing in face of a condition of affairs in which over a million people are unemployed and in which countless machines are standing idle. It is not worthy of a great nation, and in view of the great majority that the Government possess we ought to have greater statesmanship.
May I again refer to the question of production? It is no use preaching to us on this question except you can show us a way whereby increased production will lead to increased employment and greater happiness for the producers. It is no use telling us that what we need is more production when we cannot get rid of the production we now have. All the time the industries of this country, the great staple heavy producing industries, seem to be going from bad to worse. Certainly, if there be an improvement it is so small as not to be seen. While this is going on, what is the use of talking about further production? What are the great difficulties that we are told confront the cotton trade, to which trade I refer, because it is the largest of all our exporting industries? We are told that one of them is the excessive hours worked and the low wages earned by people
in other countries. What has the Board of Trade done in order to bring about an international agreement with regard to hours of labour in order that if these conditions, bad as they may be, may be relatively improved? It is obviously the Board of Trade and other Departments which have prevented an agreement being made throughout Europe for the purpose of arranging for a reasonable number of hours to be worked by the workers. As a matter of fact, this country is now infinitely better situated comparatively than it was before the War. Whether you turn to India, to China, or to Europe, comparatively speaking, the condition in this country is better now as regards foreign countries than it was before the War. With it all we are losing our grip.
I have always said, and I say it again, that it is not the fault of the workmen of this country, because in my opinion we have some of the best if not the best workers in the world. I know one trade fairly intimately; I have spent a lifetime in it, and I have seen people at work in that trade in many countries but I have never seen anybody yet whom I consider to be even the equal, much less the superior, of our own people in Lancashire. It is not that we cannot do the work and, if I may say so of the trade which I know best, it is not because we have not the technical skill. The ordinary Lancashire technician is right at the top of his profession; he is not half-way down the ladder, but right at the top. The ordinary Lancashire employer as far as the technicality of his firm is concerned, knows it as well as any employer in the world.
What is the reason of the condition we are in? We have said to the Government, and I say to the Board of Trade again, that it would be very wise on their part to give up the attitude which they have so long adopted, of letting things slide. The policy of laissez faire may have been good 50 years ago when we were the first industrial nation in the world and when no other nation had a machine system comparable with ours. The doctrine of letting things slide may have done then, but it will not do now. We have to bring ourselves up-to-date. We have to realise that the world is marching as well as we are. We have to realise that when people begin business now in the machine industry they do not
begin as they did 40 or 50 years ago, very often with our worn-out machinery; they begin with new machinery, absolutely up-to-date, and often with English technical skill to help them to develop their industries. All these things are going on and the Government cannot afford to stand still, like Micawber, and wait for something to turn up. Something will turn up when it is made to turn up, and unless we are prepared to make it turn up there is little hope for our nation.
I heard the statement of the President of the Board of Trade and, like my hon. Friend who preceded me, I regret the circumstances that account for the absence of the right hon. Gentleman. There is one thing about the House of Commons, and it is a thing to be proud of, that, however much we differ politically, we always realise that there are things that far transcend party and are much greater than any party. I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman is not here, but my regrets would have been much less if he had been able in his speech to give us some ray of hope for the future, some constructive idea, some sentiment, some statement that would have given us some glimmer of hope for the future. Instead, he gave us a collection of figures which were absolutely unilluminated by any suggestion of any possible step to be taken; nothing but blind despair, and for the reason that this is apparently due to lack of policy on the part of the Board of Trade, I shall certainly vote for the reduction.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am sorry to have to inflict a second speech upon the Committee to-day, but in the rather unusual circumstances which have arisen it is necessary that I should make a further speech. I have listened with pleasure, as I always do to the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw). He has gone out of the business with which he was prominently associated. He has abandoned the rabbit business and gone into the octopus business. I am not going to speak of the growth of industry, because I spoke on that subject earlier. The right hon. Gentleman said that it is the business of the Board of Trade to bring the idle hands and the idle capital together, and to give people the money with which to buy the goods that we produce. Apply that to the industry with which
the right hon. Gentleman is most closely associated. Let me assume that I have the power and could bring idle hands and idle capital together. Does the hon. Member suggest that the consuming power of this country would be sufficient to consume the products of the cotton industry of Lancashire working at full time? The consuming power which he is after is outside these islands.

Mr. T SHAW: May I call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that some of us know that there are other countries in the Empire; and that India is in the Empire.

Mr. WILLIAMS: India to-day has a partial form of self-government and as a result of it, rightly or wrongly, has thrown off her political shackles and adopted a system by which there is an Import Duty of 11 per cent. on cotton goods. That may be part of the trouble, but the logical consequence of granting self-determination to a country is that the country will devise a policy which, rightly or wrongly, it thinks will suit its own economic circumstances. Free Traders below the Gangway urged that a system of self-government should be conferred upon and when she is given Home Rule, India indulges in a protective tariff against Lancashire. There is no greater fallacy than the fallacy of greater production. When we talk about increased production what do we mean? Surely we are thinking of increased efficiency of production. Every hon. Member opposite who has spoken has urged the necessity of increased efficiency—and increased efficiency is increased production per person concerned—as in that way you increase your production, lower your selling prices, widen your markets and get more employment. Hon. Members do not real se the point of the difficulty by the balance of production. Four and a half years ago lots of people in this country followed the example of their sisters in France and got shingled. It had an adverse effect on the hairpin industry It is not a great industry; but it illustrates the point that if you have a change in the direction of expenditure resulting from some complete change in fashion you upset the industry entirely.
There has been a certain amount of discussion to the effect that the trouble arises from a lack of purchasing power
on the part of our workers. That may be the case, but the purchasing power of industry is the result of the sales of the product of that industry, and whatever dispute there may be as to the sharing of the profits of the industry as between the capitalist and the employé it makes no difference to the actual purchasing power of any portion. If wages are increased and profits diminished your purchasing power remains unaltered. If profits rise and wages fall your purchasing power remains unaltered. Let me assume that I am the manager of a factory and that I have associated with me so many workpeople. We work for a certain number of hours and produce £100 worth of goods. We sell them, and we have £100 to spend. The actual amount of purchasing power available is £100, whether I take half and give the workpeople the other half, or whether I take £5 and give the workpeople £95. The hon. Member who represents a coal mining area says that I should not spend it. In what way could any recipient of income in this country abstain from spending it? He can only spend it on the purchase of goods.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: If the hon. Member gets all that he wants for £25, what is he going to do with the other £25? The man who only gets £1 wants 30s., which he can use very well.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member is evidently under the impression that money that is saved is not, in fact, spent. Of course, it is spent on the purchase of capital goods, and if he will address himself to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly)—

Mr. MAXTON: rose—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is in possession of the Committee.

Mr. MAXTON: He has made two speeches and he has repeated these fallacies to the Committee before.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed. A number of questions have been put to him which he is answering.

Mr. MAXTON: I am appealing to the hon. Gentleman for the courtesy of giving way, as is usual.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is in possession of the Committee.

Mr. MAXTON: I know he is, but I am appealing to him for a little courtesy.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If an hon. Member opposite asks questions, I am entitled to give answers to them before any other hon. Member intervenes. The hon. Member seems to think that money which is invested is not spent. I am merely pointing out that it is spent on the purchase of capital goods. If he consults the hon. Member for Rochdale, who is concerned with producing goods, he will discover that these goods consist very largely of iron and steel products, and that these goods result very largely in the production of coal and, therefore, money saved does, in fact, stimulate the production of coal.

Mr. MAXTON: That is awful rot!

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for Rochdale asked what we were doing. I cannot argue about legislation. I would point out that whenever we propose anything the hon. Member always goes into the Lobby and votes against us. There is the rating scheme, the safeguarding of industries duties which are in operation—[Interruption]. Then there is the effect of the Merchandise Marks Act on unemployment and the effect of the existing duties. There is the effect of the Films Act which, I believe, is of some value, and there is the work which we have taken in hand in connection with standardisation and simplification. Then the hon. Member asked about shipbuilding. I pointed out that our share of the world's shipbuilding is satisfactory. The total amount of shipbuilding in the world is not sufficiently large to keep our shipbuilding yards fully employed, but that arises from world conditions and not from internal conditions in this country.

Mr. KELLY: And from reparations.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It is no good suggesting that reparation ships transferred ten years ago are to-day having any material effect on the shipbuilding situation, having regard to the fact that there is far more idle American tonnage in the world than the total amount of German ships transferred. With regard to the cotton conditions, I would refer to the recent speech made by my right hon. Friend, and also to the very plain
and clear statement made by the Prime Minister in his recent speech at Manchester, to which there is nothing to add. Surely, in view of the nature of that statement, there is no point at the moment in adding anything, particularly having regard to the fact that the details are the subject of an inquiry by a very competent body, the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, and until that body has reported what is desirable, it would he perfectly stupid for the Government to set up another inquiry.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough attacked the President of the Board of Trade for what he called his complete optimism. The President did not indulge in any vague or complete optimism. He gave a very well-balanced report as to the state of the various industries, and said quite clearly that there was at the moment some check in trade, and he expressed the opinion that that check would be temporary. That is not a statement of overwhelming optimism. It is a carefully considered statement that my right hon. Friend was entitled to make on the reports that he had obtained.
Then the hon. Member for Rochdale wanted to know in which industry people get additional work—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wages!"] No, he said work. If the hon. Member will go into the Library and look at the Ministry of Labour Gazette for November, 1927, he will find on page 428 enough information to keep him employed for a long time. He asked which industry pays an adequate wage, and then he proposed to reduce either my salary, or that of my chief.

Mr. KELLY: That is not an industry.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It may not be an industry, but we are industrious.

Mr. KELLY: Which industry pays an adequate wage?

Mr. WILLIAMS: An adequate wage is wholly relative. If you could tell the citizens of 50 years ago what was the existing wage to-day in relation to the cost of living, they would be astounded at the high standard of living that our people now enjoy. What is a decent standard of living is entirely relative to the age in which you live. I hope that people will never be contented, and that
they will always go on seeking to raise the standard of life. If 50 years from now you told people what are the wages paid to-day, they would probably still talk about the deplorably low standard of life now enjoyed. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) wanted to know what was the position of the Food Council. On 17th May the Prime Minister made the very definite statement that "Unless within a reasonable period the requisite information is supplied to the Food Council," etc. He said "a reasonable period." No specific time limit was fixed, for an obvious reason. Since the matters have been in dispute with some of the traders for a considerable period, new periods have begun in relation to which information should be obtained, and therefore new statements will have to be procured. If there is any default, of course the pledge, of the Prime Minister will be carried out. I have now covered all the material points that were raised, and I hope we shall get the Vote.

Mr. PALING: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman was going to deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) in regard to coal exporting. He was asked which industries were providing increased work. Certainly the mining industry is providing so much, that only 250,000 men altogether, have been thrown out of work owing to the policy of the Government.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: How many would your policy have thrown out of work?

Mr. PALING: The hon. Member is in favour of the wearing of the guss by the miner in his own constituency. That is capitalist policy. I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary did not try to assure us that the Board of Trade was doing something to arrive at an international agreement in regard to coal selling abroad. I cannot go into the question though I might have been able to do so, had the hon. Gentleman not made two speeches instead of one.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £100,675, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 200.

Division No. 161.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harris, Percy A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry
Robinson, W. C (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Baker, Walter
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barnes, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shinwell, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Smillie, Robert


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Ctuse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Snell, Harry


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Stamford, T. W.


Cove, W. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Stephen, Campbell


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lunn, William
Strauss, E. A.


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon)
Sutton, J. E.


Day, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thurtle, Ernest


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tinker, John Joseph


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Tomilnson, R. p.


Dunnico, H.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Townend, A. E.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Montague, Frederick
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. p.


Fenby, T. D.
Morris, R. H.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C, (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M (Dunfermline)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gibbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wiggins, William Martin


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Purcell, A. A.



Hall, G. H. (Marthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Riley, Ben
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.


Hardle, George D.
Ritson, J.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis C.


Albery, Irving James
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Galbraith. J. F. W.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gates, Percy


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Chapman, Sir S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Goff, Sir Park


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Christie, J. A.
Gower, Sir Robert


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Atholl, Duchess of
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Atkinson, C.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Grotrian, H. Brent


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington. N.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bainiel, Lord
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gunston, captain D. W.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hacking, Douglas H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hamilton, Sir George


Bennett, A. J.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hammersley, S. S.


Bethel, A.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hanbury, C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Harland, A


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Haslam, Henry C.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Davies, Or. Verndn
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Dixey, A. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. w.
Drewe, C.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Brass, Captain W.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Briggs, I. Harold
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Ellis, R. G.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
England, Colonel A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Brooke, Brigadier General C. R. I.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.( Berks, Newb'y)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Burman, J. B.
Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fanshawe, Captain G. 0.
Hurd, Percy A


Calne, Gordon Hall
Fielden, E. B.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Campbell, E, T.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Can't}


Carver, Major W. H.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Jephcott, A. R




Kennedy, A. Ft. (Preston)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Templeton, W. P.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Plicher, G.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lamb, J. Q.
Preston, William
Tinne, J. A.


Looker, Herbert William
Price, Major C. W. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Radford, E. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


McLean, Major A.
Raine, Sir Walter
Vaughan-Morgan Col. K. P.


Macnaghton, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Ramsden, E.
Waddington, R.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rentoul, G. S.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wayland, Sir William A.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wells, S. R.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Nelson, Sir Frank
Sandon, Lord
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Womersley, W. J.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Savery, S. S.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Nutiall, Ellis
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Oakley, T.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wragg, Herbert


Pennefather, Sir John
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



Penny, Frederick George
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Captain Margesson and Captain Wallance.


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Tusker, R. Inlgo.

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and, objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Lydney, in the county of Gloucester, and the urban district of Usk, the rural district of Monmouth, and parts of the rural districts of Chepstow and Pontypool, in the county of Monmouth, which was presented on the 26th day of April, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the urban district of Walsoken, in the county of Norfolk, which
was presented on the 8th day of May, 1928, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Bridport and parts of the rural districts of Bridport and Beaminster, in the county of Dorset, which was presented on the 26th day of April, 1928, be approved."—[Colonel Ashley.]

RAILWAY PASSENGERS (THIRD CLASS SLEEPING) BILL.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.